http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Nuclear Crisis in Japan - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
* Killer bees are here to sting again - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/35f8884779cb87af?hl=en
* Do desktop computers use more electricity than laptops? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7ceff4a114045a9e?hl=en
* Frugal Potassium Iodide? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a117af0bec4bad24?hl=en
* Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
* If every roof was a solar panel - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd0a5af9cc4337f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nuclear Crisis in Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 2:04 pm
From: "HeyBub"
Bob F wrote:
> chaniarts wrote:
>>> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
>>> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
>>
>> how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
>
> Less than it would cost to pay for them.
Not if the government (i.e., you, me, and everyone else) subsidizes the
project.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 3:16 pm
From: The Daring Dufas
On 3/18/2011 1:15 PM, Karen Silkwood wrote:
> In article<PqydnbFgCLrqPhzQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin"<DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7-b993-2564ecc9d0b4@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
>>> design of
>>> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
>>> from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
>>> compromised.
>>
>> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper than
>> competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the 70s about the
>> potential for just such failures as we are now seeing, and that the design
>> of the plant in question was shockingly vulnerable. To suggest that
>> questioning the safety of the design is a left-wing smear is not a position
>> supported by the facts.
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
>> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>>
>> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing
>> them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a
>> comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
>>
>> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>>
>> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy
>> Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it
>> presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the
>> smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and
>> rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at
>> the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
>>
>> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the
>> Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission,
>> said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology
>> had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he
>> said, that "reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time,
>> could well be the end of nuclear power.''
>>
>>> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
>>> understand
>>> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
>>> surprised to find out that after an earthquake
>>> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
>>> were
>>> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
>>> turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>>
>> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be appropriate
>> terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a couple of hundred miles
>> downwind from that plant your opinion would be very different.
>
> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
Dang Karen, no wonder you were assassinated! ^_^
TDD
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 3:47 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Karen Silkwood wrote:
> In article <PqydnbFgCLrqPhzQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7-b993-2564ecc9d0b4@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
>>> design of
>>> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning
>>> that from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT
>>> been compromised.
>>
>> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper
>> than competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the
>> 70s about the potential for just such failures as we are now seeing,
>> and that the design of the plant in question was shockingly
>> vulnerable. To suggest that questioning the safety of the design is
>> a left-wing smear is not a position supported by the facts.
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
>> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>>
>> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s,
>> marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because
>> they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment
>> structure.
>>
>> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>>
>> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic
>> Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be
>> discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among
>> the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was
>> more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen
>> — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi
>> plant.
>>
>> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become
>> chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to
>> the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was
>> attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the
>> industry and regulatory officials, he said, that "reversal of this
>> hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of
>> nuclear power.''
>>
>>> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
>>> understand
>>> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not
>>> be surprised to find out that after an earthquake
>>> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the
>>> plants were
>>> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries
>>> could turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>>
>> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be
>> appropriate terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a
>> couple of hundred miles downwind from that plant your opinion would
>> be very different.
> What if every roof top had a solar panel?
Taint enough for heating and cooling alone.
> we wouldn't need a single nuklar device.
You'd certainly need more than that.
> and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too.
Nope, you cant drive you car with a solar panel on it.
Try doing a 747 like that. Doesnt work too well.
> Sound good?
Nope, mindlessly superficial, actually.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 3:56 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
DGDevin wrote
>>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely
>>> out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
>>> billions to clean up. And that is the best case.
>> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?
> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
> U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious
> impact in the U.S.?
Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
> Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding
> from this horrible disaster,
And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.
> is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
What might well happen is that Japan stops buying so much US govt
debt, but china etc will be able to do that instead and china may very well
profit from what Japan wont be able to produce due to the power cuts.
>> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
>> Unless you think tthey all performed exactly as designed and intended.
> That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.
>> It could turn out that a
>> simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet
>> higher would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could
>> be implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
>> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to ignore that these particular reactors have
> caused trouble before.
And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down
in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that
cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in
> the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
> intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
> profits were put ahead of public safety.
Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
The germans were planning to do the same thing until the shit hit the fan in Japan.
> Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid,
Thats not true in china.
> but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.
Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.
The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular reactors
do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere will be MUCH lower
than would have been emitted from coal fired power stations used instead
of Japan having any nukes at all.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 4:26 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/18/2011 2:23 PM, chaniarts wrote:
> Karen Silkwood wrote:
>> In article<PqydnbFgCLrqPhzQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>> "DGDevin"<DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7-b993-2564ecc9d0b4@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
>>>> design of
>>>> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning
>>>> that from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT
>>>> been compromised.
>>>
>>> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper
>>> than competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the
>>> 70s about the potential for just such failures as we are now seeing,
>>> and that the design of the plant in question was shockingly
>>> vulnerable. To suggest that questioning the safety of the design is
>>> a left-wing smear is not a position supported by the facts.
>>>
>>> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
>>> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>>>
>>> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s,
>>> marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because
>>> they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>>>
>>> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic
>>> Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be
>>> discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among
>>> the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was
>>> more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen
>>> — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi
>>> plant.
>>>
>>> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become
>>> chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to
>>> the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was
>>> attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the
>>> industry and regulatory officials, he said, that "reversal of this
>>> hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of
>>> nuclear power.''
>>>
>>>> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
>>>> understand
>>>> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not
>>>> be surprised to find out that after an earthquake
>>>> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the
>>>> plants were
>>>> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries
>>>> could turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>>>
>>> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be
>>> appropriate terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a
>>> couple of hundred miles downwind from that plant your opinion would
>>> be very different.
>>
>> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
>> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be It varies widel eliminated too. Sound good?
>
> how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
It depends on the technology for PV, those costs are reflected in the
cost/watt. Some day if you need a watt you may be able to print it:
Thermal is a much better return for now. Both for hot water and space
heating.
Jeff
>
>
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 4:59 pm
From: "DGDevin"
"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8ui68lFf2pU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid
>> in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
> Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in
Congress figure its essential to end it as part of saving the budget.
>> U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
>> Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?
> Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from
someone else?
>> Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to come
>> they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this horrible
>> disaster,
> And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their
> lost
> decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.
It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese
have largely changed the name to The Lost Years, it isn't over yet.
>> is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
> Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to
increasingly throw its weight around won't be impacted by the most powerful
economy in that group of nations being unable to participate? Check the
battery in your crystal ball.
>> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
>> ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
> And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down
> in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that
> cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of
stock.
>> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in
>> the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
>> intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
>> profits were put ahead of public safety.
> Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later
designs, flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week.
But other than that, no big deal.
>> Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs
>> have been paid,
> Thats not true in china.
Lots of things aren't true in China, like representative democracy--doesn't
mean we want to emulate their approach.
>> but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless
>> greed.
> Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.
Building a nuclear power plant near a known fault that can produce three
times as much seismic energy as the plant is capable of handling is actually
quite black and white, so is concealing hundreds of accidents and falsified
repairs over decades.
> The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular reactors
> do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere will be MUCH lower
> than would have been emitted from coal fired power stations used instead
> of Japan having any nukes at all.
You can drown in a river with an average depth of six inches. The impact on
people living on the other side of the globe isn't the issue, it's what
happens to people immediately downwind if a bad situation gets even worse.
Would you care to volunteer to move to a hundred miles south of this power
plant? Thirteen million people in and around Tokyo; if this situation gets
worse I bet they won't find your views on the relative amounts of radiation
released to be too comforting.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 7:02 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
DGDevin wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> DGDevin wrote
>>>>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely
>>>>> out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
>>>>> billions to clean up. And that is the best case.
>>>> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?
>>> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
>> Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
> So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in Congress figure its essential to end it as
> part of saving the budget.
Your problem.
>>> U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
>>> Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?
>> Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
> Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from someone else?
Because it takes a bit of time to organise a change of supplier like that.
>>> Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to
>>> come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this
>>> horrible disaster,
>> And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
>> decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.
> It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese have largely changed the name to The Lost
> Years, it isn't over yet.
Time will tell if this beings an end to it.
>>> is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
>> Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
> So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to increasingly throw its weight around
Pure fantasy.
> won't be impacted by the most powerful economy in that group of nations being unable to participate?
You aint established that Japan wont be able to
continue to do what it has already been doing.
> Check the battery in your crystal ball.
Dont have one.
>>> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard
>>> to ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
>> And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes
>> that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
> If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of stock.
More fool you.
>>> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are
>>> already well past
>>> their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
>>> corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.
>> Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
> If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,
All nukes and anything else that major have done too.
> flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.
Irrelevant to that silly shit of yours about corporate profits.
>>> Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid,
>> Thats not true in china.
> Lots of things aren't true in China, like representative
> democracy--doesn't mean we want to emulate their approach.
Never said a word about emulating anything.
>>> but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.
>> Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.
> Building a nuclear power plant near a known fault that can produce
> three times as much seismic energy as the plant is capable of handling
That isnt what the problem at those reactors is about.
> is actually quite black and white,
Nope. You have no idea what that particular fault can produce seismic energy wise.
> so is concealing hundreds of accidents and falsified repairs over decades.
Nope.
>> The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular
>> reactors do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere
>> will be MUCH lower than would have been emitted from coal fired
>> power stations used instead of Japan having any nukes at all.
> You can drown in a river with an average depth of six inches.
The rolling stone gathers no moss.
> The impact on people living on the other side of the globe isn't the issue, it's what happens to people immediately
> downwind if a bad situation gets even worse.
What I said about even if they all melt down covers that.
> Would you care to volunteer to move to a hundred miles south of this power plant?
Irrelevant to what Japan uses to generate power.
> Thirteen million people in and around Tokyo; if this situation gets worse I bet they won't find your views on the
> relative amounts of radiation released to be too comforting.
Irrelevant to what Japan uses to generate power.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Killer bees are here to sting again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/35f8884779cb87af?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 3:29 pm
From: gordonb.ajkjk@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
>> http://mobile.associatedcontent.com/article/2813980/killer_bees_can_k...
>>
>> Best not to use those phy$icaly loud lawn tools :D
>
> Damn that Obama. Why don't he do somethin about them killer bees?
It is against Federal government policy to ask for a birth certificate
and possibly deport based on the results of looking at it.
California, however, has come up with one method that works to a degree.
It gives each bee a California driver's license. When you compare the
size and weight of a driver's license with the bee, you can see that it
will slow down their flight speed considerably.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 9:07 pm
From: Buster Norris
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:44:05 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<gumfries@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <tater@kernsholler.net>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterGumfries@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.138.19.107
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bodhi@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterGumfries@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bodhi@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
From: Baggi <BaggiBumschaudner@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.170.32
Google Profile:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=aPeBnxUAAACt8q8X_hh5lAgeZWKUTajQZk8LRyw6Fzc364xXu3mYhA
http://www.kernsholler.net
Registrant: John Starrett
3500 Clay St.
Denver, Colorado 80211
303-242-6285
Real Email: jstarret@nmt.edu
http://whois.domaintools.com/kernsholler.net
http://www.aurapiercing.com
Registrant: StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
Administrative,
Technical Contact: Starrett, John David (Age 57)
StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801 (Home address)
575-838-0915 (Home telephone, Qwest)
Real Email: jstarret@nmt.edu
Real Email: jstarret@sdc.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/aurapiercing.com
Employer: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
--- [Courtesy of Buster Norris] --------------------------
Johnnie is in the Mathematics Dept, extension 5763.
http://www.nmt.edu/directory
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/
"I am an associate professor of mathematics at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. My main area of research is in
knot theory and the topology of strange attractors."
Office: 240 Weir
Email: jstarret@nmt.edu
Phone: 575-835-5763
His boss is Chairman/Professor Stone, William D. extension 5786,
email: wdstone@nmt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 10:28 pm
From: Tater Gumfries
On Mar 18, 10:07 pm, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:44:05 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
>
> <g
Gordon said somethin smart and funny. You vomited out the usual crap.
You're no one.
Tater
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 11:04 pm
From: Buster Norris
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:28:51 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<gumfries@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 10:07�pm, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:44:05 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
>>
>> <g
>
>Gordon said somethin smart and funny. You vomited out the usual crap.
>
>You're no one.
And I like it that way...............
But you're not not one!!!!!!! You're Johnnie!!!!!!!!!!
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <tater@kernsholler.net>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterGumfries@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.138.19.107
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bodhi@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterGumfries@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bodhi@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
From: Baggi <BaggiBumschaudner@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepramer@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tartarus@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.170.32
Google Profile:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=aPeBnxUAAACt8q8X_hh5lAgeZWKUTajQZk8LRyw6Fzc364xXu3mYhA
http://www.kernsholler.net
Registrant: John Starrett
3500 Clay St.
Denver, Colorado 80211
303-242-6285
Real Email: jstarret@nmt.edu
http://whois.domaintools.com/kernsholler.net
http://www.aurapiercing.com
Registrant: StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
Administrative,
Technical Contact: Starrett, John David (Age 57)
StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801 (Home address)
575-838-0915 (Home telephone, Qwest)
Real Email: jstarret@nmt.edu
Real Email: jstarret@sdc.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/aurapiercing.com
Employer: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
--- [Courtesy of Buster Norris] --------------------------
Johnnie is in the Mathematics Dept, extension 5763.
http://www.nmt.edu/directory
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/
"I am an associate professor of mathematics at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. My main area of research is in
knot theory and the topology of strange attractors."
Office: 240 Weir
Email: jstarret@nmt.edu
Phone: 575-835-5763
His boss is Chairman/Professor Stone, William D. extension 5786,
email: wdstone@nmt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do desktop computers use more electricity than laptops?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7ceff4a114045a9e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 4:43 pm
From: "John Weiss"
aesthete8 wrote:
> ???????????????????????
Yes. A typical laptop uses around 30 watts under load, where a typical
desktop uses around 200. There is significant variation, especially
with heavy-duty graphics cards in desktops, which can use 300+ watts on
their own.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Potassium Iodide?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a117af0bec4bad24?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 4:43 pm
From: "John Weiss"
Darkfalz wrote:
> Is frugal Potassium Iodide available anywhere in light of the Japanese
> meltdown?
Yes. Don't buy any.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 5:39 pm
From: The Real Bev
On 03/18/11 13:30, Bob F wrote:
> Bill Bowden wrote:
>> Not having a long distance service, I recently made a 23 minute long
>> distance call (California to Texas) using operator assistance and was
>> billed a little over $60. The operator made no comment about the
>> charges at the time. I consulted AT&T costumer service about a credit
>> for being unaware of the high rates, but they said there was nothing
>> they could do. I could have purchased a prepaid phone including 5
>> hours of time for less than $40. But there was still nothing they
>> could do.
Change 'could' to 'would'. Education isn't cheap. Neither is AT&T.
> I've had good results with onesuite.
Google voice is free.
--
Cheers, Bev
1010101010101010101010101010101010101
What do you think you're doing, Dave?
-- Hal 9000
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 6:25 pm
From: Susan Bugher
Bill Bowden wrote:
> Not having a long distance service, I recently made a 23 minute long
> distance call (California to Texas) using operator assistance and was
> billed a little over $60. The operator made no comment about the
> charges at the time. I consulted AT&T costumer service about a credit
> for being unaware of the high rates, but they said there was nothing
> they could do. I could have purchased a prepaid phone including 5
> hours of time for less than $40. But there was still nothing they
> could do.
Purchasing a prepaid phone card would be more frugal. This one has
worked well for me:
http://www.prepaidcall.com/Cards/clean.htm
A $10 card gets you over 7 hours of time if your call is to the US/Canada.
Susan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: If every roof was a solar panel
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd0a5af9cc4337f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 7:57 pm
From: Karen Silkwood
We wouldn't need nuke power plants or Wars for Oil.
Wouldn't that be a better world? New research could make the panels
cheap. They could heat water or air, even make electricity.
and Karen would still be with us.
--
Karma, What a concept!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2011 7:41 pm
From: "Nick Naim"
"Karen Silkwood" <georgeswk@toast.net> wrote in message
news:georgeswk-0419F7.18574518032011@news.toast.net...
> We wouldn't need nuke power plants or Wars for Oil.
> Wouldn't that be a better world? New research could make the panels
> cheap. They could heat water or air, even make electricity.
> and Karen would still be with us.
> --
> Karma, What a concept!
Wars would be for still
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment