Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Sure, why not? (Score 1) 410

by WGFCrafty (#46263147) Attached to: Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund

I didn't even see the corrections at the bottom. The last sentence makes me lol

"CORRECTION:
Figures for four companies have been updated: Beacon Power received $43 million from the U.S. government, not $69 million as originally reported. Azure Dynamics received $5.4 million from the federal government, not $120 million as originally reported. Compact Power Inc. received $151 million as part of the stimulus, not $150 million as originally reported. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group received $700,981 in government funding, not $6 million as originally reported.
The following companies have been removed from the original list: AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy, LSP Energy, Schneider Electric, and Uni-Solar did not receive government-backed loans, based on additional research. The National Renewable Energy Lab did received $200 million in stimulus funding, but it is a government laboratory."

Comment: Re:Some possible ways (Score 1) 745

by WGFCrafty (#46263145) Attached to: Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

lololol

That's a misquote of Zappa:

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."

But you've illustrated the point nicely.

Comment: Re: Sure, why not? (Score 1) 410

by WGFCrafty (#46263095) Attached to: Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund

Thing is, the list is of companies "The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:" so companies on the edge of collapse. The thing is, filing for bankruptcy (unless you're just gonna sell off the assets....) or being on the edge of collapse does not necessarily mean complete failure. This list does not include companies which received loans and who are profitable and solid. As mentioned, it doesn't include Tesla, well, Tesla motors stock price has climbed rapidly and they're profitable. Clearly they are neither faltering or bankrupt.

#1 problem with this list " bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy" is their definition of faltering. This means that you can pretty much create a bad faith and arbitrary list for the sake of argument argument by changing what these terms mean. Profitable but lagging companies sometimes lay off workers, yet they would be considered more solid. Companies heading for bankruptcy are sometimes still industry giants (just not in net profit).

A better list would have a the following: Name/Term of loan/Outstanding Loan $ (0$ if borrowed and paid in full)/Income/Profit (net)

and maybe a few more indicators. Some companies are more longshot investments, whether any of the companies who received loans one day become megaliths, only time shall tell.

Comment: Re:Helium? (Score 2) 429

by WGFCrafty (#45066883) Attached to: Fusion Reactor Breaks Even

I don't know a lot of about fusion, but I've read Helium is a byproduct of fusion reactions. Once these things start getting run more and more, will we be able to harvest the helium generated to stave off the coming shortages?

Yes, you have a cursory understanding.

What people don't understand is that continuing this fusion for power kick will drastically alter ambient helium levels, and with that, the pitch of our voices! To answer your question, not only will shortages be reversed, but exponentially so, and to the detriment of our manliness.

Comment: Re: I know the rules are bogus (Score 1) 278

by WGFCrafty (#45056397) Attached to: Why the FAA May Finally Relax In-Flight Device Rules

After rereading your message I'm convinced it was meant to be tongue in cheek funny. Who has six devices? My cell, my kindle, my ipad, my laptop, and my TWO pagers. Or twenty year ago a 15 pound laptop, 5 pound phone (with a battery bigger then that in the 787s gone bad) and four pagers.

You probably glow in the dark.

Comment: Re: I know the rules are bogus (Score 1) 278

by WGFCrafty (#45056361) Attached to: Why the FAA May Finally Relax In-Flight Device Rules

You're an exemplification of inbreeding. My point wasn't that devices.effect.the plane, just that a perfect flight is not proof that nothing occurred. Maybe if your reading comprehension surpassed that of a turnip, you'd have understood what I meant.

Christ, how does this Anonymous Coward guy post funny shit sometimes and others he's an ignorant twat. ;-)

Comment: Re: I know the rules are bogus (Score 1, Interesting) 278

by WGFCrafty (#45054169) Attached to: Why the FAA May Finally Relax In-Flight Device Rules

This is plus two? I left my shit on and I'm alive so that's proof that electronics don't interfere with the radio or instruments? Maybe the copilots radar altimeter went wonky due to you and you only were saved from potential disaster because autopilot was fed from the captain's instruments?

Your statement is less then meaningless. Nothing very well may have happend and and very likely didn't, but maybe you added one link to a causality chain which could have occured, but did not.

Comment: That includes WiFi? (Score 1) 278

by WGFCrafty (#45054107) Attached to: Why the FAA May Finally Relax In-Flight Device Rules

That's with WiFi on?

And I don't quite understand, WiFi is included on my leg from LaGuardia->DFW, and part of the trip to NY, I plan on using my kindle to watch Netflix. Hope the speeds are sufficient.

Are they talking about allowing electronics throughout; from boarding to grabbing your stuff to exit?

How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."

Working...