segnosaur

But overall, its a very small part of total revenue. From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2012/09/19/owners-and-bettman-to-blame-for-nhl-lockout-not-the-fans/ During the 2010-11 season the typical NHL team only generated 18% of its revenue from television. Last year the average team in the NFL...earned 54% of its revenue from TV. The...NBA and MLB are 38% and 32%, respectively. ... So why last year did the league settle on a 10-year national television deal with Comcast’s NBC worth only $2 billion...Ozanian even bashed it in his story calling it “…such a small piece of the overall revenue pie that it is virtually inconsequential.” The NBA’s current national deals are worth $7.4 billion over 8 years ... Again we have reported what is going on with regards to television rights fees defying ratings. Nielsen reports that ad spending on sports jumped 33% in the past three years... So, there's more money being thrown around for sports in general, yet even though the NHL signed a 'big' TV contract, its tiny compared to what other sports can and do get. I should add that when I was discussing increased revenue, I suggested much of the increase might have been from higher ticket prices. (I never claimed it all was.) Stein was president for only 1 year, not really enough to do anything significant. If I remember correctly, NFL revenues were relatively unaffected by the recession. (Furthermore, they managed to sign a new deal with the players for the next decade or so, no strike or lockout.)

Here's something more recent... From: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html Death rate: Solar: 0.44 deaths/TWh Nuclear: 0.04 deaths/TWh And here's another one: http://www.fas.org/blogs/sciencewonk/2012/01/whither-nuclear-power/ ...nuclear energy is less deadly (in terms of annual fatalities per gigawatt year of energy produced) than are coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, or solar energy. Of course, that's more evidence than you've provided. But then, why would you need facts and evidence when you can just wave a magic talisman and go "oooo.... meltdown!". The only time I posted a link to Wikipedia was when I was discussing the design of the Chernobyl reactor. Given the fact that design specs have been widely available and not exactly controversial I didn't think it would be an issue. However, since you seem to insist on other sources, there is this: From: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf31.html The combination of graphite moderator and water coolant is found in no other power reactors in the world. As the Chernobyl accident showed, several of the RBMK's design characteristics – in particular, the control rod design and a positive void coefficient – were unsafe. (This is an article from a nuclear support organization, they should have a pretty good idea of what a "good" reactor design is.) And just in case you don't trust information from a "nuclear" organization, here's an article from a university source: From: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/cherno2.html this positive void coefficient for the RBMK exists under most operating conditions and makes them particularly difficult to control at low power levels. It also has a slow scram system. These soviet reactors are missing such safety features as the 6 to 8 inch steel reactor vessel and the steel and concrete reactor containment dome of the US light water reactors. Actually, its more frustration at the idiocy of people making repeated claims without even attempting to understand material that has been presented to them.

and nuclear plants have no materials other than uranium? or to borrow your line-"Or do you think just because its 'solar nuclear power' that all the raw materials just appear out of thin air fully processed?" What exactly will it take you to understand? Whatever material is needed to build and run a nuclear plant (Uranium, concrete, steel, the tears of hippies, etc.) YOU WILL NEED MORE MATERIAL TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER THROUGH SOLAR PLANTS. you're trying to deflect to industrial deaths as the only relevant factor.... Nope, I'm doing something called risk management. Its the same thing they do whenever they release a new drug or vaccine on the market, or engage in any sort of large-scale project. You look at the probability of a major problem, the possible effects, and weigh that against the cost of the alternative. So, with nuclear power, I'm weighing the chance of a large scale disaster in the case of nuclear, and weighing that against the greater number of deaths (on a regular, year by year basis) by trying to build solar panels to generate the same amount of electricity. Here's a simplified example... lets say we went all solar, and as a result 1000 people died (from mining accidents, from manufacturing accidents, from installation accidents.) Or lets say we went all nuclear, and 500 people died (for the same reasons). However, there is a 0.01% chance that there will be a major disaster that could result in a few thousand deaths. Is that 0.01% chance of a major disaster enough justify more deaths caused by solar on a year by year basis? It took a frackin earthquake and sunami to cause Fukushima. Those don't exactly happen every day. every nuclear power plant is designed as safe according to it's engineers, including Chernobyl..Chernobyl didn't fail because of engineering it failed because of human error... Actually, there were several critical design flaws in the design of the Chernobyl reactor...manual control rods w/graphite, high void coefficient. Furthermore, being Soviet-era Russia, people couldn't exactly discuss these sorts of flaws in public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and_safety_issues Actually yes it did. Reactors in the western world are designed to be more stable, even when being run by brain-damaged idiots. ummm say what, industrial deaths was never the issue, that's what you want to deflect to bs you don't care about industrial deaths, Wow, you're psychic? Amazing that you can actually tell what exactly I'm thinking. Ummm... I'm "selling" nuclear power? Since when did I become Montgomery Burns? you're deflecting again from the real danger of nuclear power....it won't work Nope, it won't work because you're a frackin' idiot who chooses to use emotion rather than, you now facts. "Oooo... meltdown. Big scary word!"

True or not , revenue is up and that is under his watch. The original post claimed that Bettman "Increased revenue". To me, the way it was worded implied that he was active in doing that and/or that he should be credited with having a hand in it, not just being around when it happened. And if the increased revenue is due to ticket price increases, that's doesn't automatically make it a good thing. After all, higher ticket prices make the game less affordable to the average ticket-paying customer. The league already had respect among the people who mattered... its fans. The question is, whether it will ever get the same respect as the other sports. How long do we have to wait before we won't see playoff hockey preempted by a horse racing preshow? A year? A decade? A century? Yet as I pointed out, those southern teams are not exactly drawing in a lot of fans. Of the 5 teams with the lowest attendance, 3 of them were in the southern U.S. (Anaheim, Dallas and Phoenix). Another was an expansion team (Columbus). Some are in trouble, but that may be more creative accounting than actual losses. While it is true that many NHL teams have been less than honest about their finances, I think there are serious problems. According to Forbes, over half the teams lost money last year. At least 9 of the teams have been long-term money losers. http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/ http://spectorshockey.net/blog/an-overview-of-the-nhls-money-losing-teams-conclusion/ I think the issue is the way the salary cap works... teams like Toronto and Montreal have huge revenues. This drives up the salaries in the league, but because they don't have a good revenue sharing plan, other teams end up loosing money. Nashville lost 7 million last year. Minnesota lost 6 million. Columbus lost 14 million. The name of the team still sucked.

But if he's just a figurehead, then how can he "do good"?

I eat raw milk cheese too. Never had any kind of poisoning. It must be just that I'm naturally healthy, in spite of all the organic food I eat. What you are doing is giving an anecdote. Sadly, such anecdotes cannot be considered evidence. We've probably also known people who've smoked like a chimney, yet lived to be quite elderly. But that doesn't mean smoking is safe.

Just to let you know... Neither The View nor Dr. Oz should be considered serious journalism, as both shows have shown a willingness to broadcast complete nonsense on their shows. For example, The View regularly has psychics as guests (e.g. John Edwards, the Psychic twins). Any show which will allow cold readers to show up on their show unchallenged doesn't deserve consideration. Dr. Oz is not any better, as he has promoted such nonsense as homeopathy and faith healing. (See: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/27/calling-dr-oz-defend-alt-med-on-skeptics-guide/)

I have a confession to make... When nobody was looking, I went and peed on the plants in the garden. I would have been fine though, since my urine would be considered 'organic'. Because hippie tears make the best fertilizer.

Because the alternative (organic food) is roughly 8 times more likely to give you E-coli poisoning. Oh, and on top of that, as carepov pointed out, organic food often contains 'organic' pesticides, such as pyrethrin (which, if I remember, is considered a carcinogen.) But don't worry, they only have to use around 3 times the amount of pytherin as they would need to get the same effect as a synthetic pesticide. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019?popular=true

Keep in mind that much of that is just from increased ticket prices. A lot of people might not consider getting fans to pay more at the gate to be the sign of someone with brilliant ideas. He did finally get the game on a major network in the U.S. (although we did have to live through the Fox puck debacle.) But the league still doesn't get the respect that other sports do. Exposure how? By having teams in places like Phoenix and Anaheim? Those same teams don't exactly fill their stadiums on a regular basis. Debatable. Some things were probably beneficial (the automatic icing rule), although some may have complained about efforts to curtail fighting. To some people, 3 lockouts in under 2 decades would be enough to consider him a "failure". A few other problems: As mentioned earlier, many of the teams are in trouble financially and are loosing money. The league expanded far to fast (with teams in markets that aren't really supportive), and he failed to bring in decent revenue sharing. Oh, and he let the Anaheim team be named after a cheezy kids movie. Of course, there are some that believe he's more or less a figurehead/puppet for the owners.

a few pounds? depending on the deposit it takes 500 to 5000kg of ore to produce one lb of uranium... this death thingy is BS, uranium mines don't have a magic potion to prevent death, exposure to radon gas in uranium mines result in deaths from lung cancer... but hey that's not really a mining death like coal mine explosion ... Once again, you miss the point... I am not claiming that Uranium mining or nuclear power generation is not without risks. The point is, whatever deaths are are caused has been less than the deaths caused by supposedly "safe" technologies when you factor in the amount of energy generated. And there is also damage to the environment caused by the mining and processing of things like Copper that are used to produce solar panels. Only there is probably more of it, because you need many solar panels to generate the same power that a single nuclear plant generates. Or do you think just because its 'solar power' that all the raw materials just appear out of thin air fully processed? ya it's so inconvenient, nuclear power is perfectly safe except for those that aren't and we can ignore those you know, you seem to be quite keen on building up those straw men, aren't you. First of all, I never said "nuclear power is perfectly safe". There will be accidents, there will be deaths. Its just that those deaths/accidents will probably cause less harm overall than attempts to generate the same amount of power using other means. Secondly, I am a fan of nuclear power that's been properly regulated. Chernobyl should never have been built. If someone tried to say "lets build another Chernobyl-style reactor" I'd tell them they're idiots. I suspect pretty much anyone in the nuclear industry would have said the same thing even before they had their problems. Trying to Lump Chernobyl in with the reactors in the U.S., France or Canada is no more relevant than saying "All cars are unsafe because the Ford Pinto had a reputation for exploding". Or saying "All fireworks must be banned because some idiot kid lost a finger when he set off a fire cracker". Now, Fukishma is fair game... it was a better reactor design, and had more competent people running it. And yes, it was a horrible accident. But lets see... we've had nuclear power for roughly 5 decades. There are hundreds of civilian nuclear power plants in the world (and even more military ones). One "Fukishima scale" disaster every half century or so must be weighed against the number of deaths or environmental problems that would have occurred in the same time frame had we stuck to fossil fuels (or tried using Solar, Wind, etc.) Ummm.. say what? And I would like to minimize those accidents, and the deaths that would result. So, let me get this straight... You're totally happy with people dying, as long as their home remains livable for other people after they're gone?

That's a very good point. What he does does look a lot like "cold reading".

So grow em some where else then! Yup, and keep the developing countries subject to outside food aid. Not to mention that little issue of corrupt countries not actually allowing the distribution of food aid to the people. But hey, I'm sure you can wave your little magic wand and make all the bad people in the world go away. Oh, and all the environmental damage caused by the vehicles spewing CO2 into the air when delivering that food aid? Who cares, right? Wow, just totally wow. Yeah, I'm sure the poor farmers living in subsharan africa or South east asia can just pick up and move on a whim. Maybe they can spend summers at their villas in the south of france, or head on over to Disney world for spring break. Or if they need some place to stay full time, they can move in with you. You have a couch they can crash on? Poor farmers can do that, can't they? You and Ghosthacked seem to... There are 7 billion people on the planet. There are approximately 1 billion people in Africa. Another few hundred million in places like Cambodia, India, etc. who are affected by vitamin A deficiency. With that many people around, and that many people affected, Do you think you and GhostHacked are the only people to ever come up with the idea of "grow a carrot"? Why do you think that the problem still exists if you think its that easy to fix? Do you think Monsanto is running around with spy planes and secret ninjas, to search and destroy any carrots that farmers plant in those areas? Or perhaps the problems are a little more complex than your overly simplistic "let them plant carrots/move/import" would suggest. Pssst... here's a little secret... Companies releasing GM foods (or new pesticides/food additives/medication/etc.) have to undergo tests. So their development is hardly "unfettered". On the other hand, when the products are proven safe, we need those same voices to shut the heck up. Saying "no" is only valuable when you actually have things like science and facts behind you.

There is a patent on that rice. Why do companies put patents on their products? Hint: money. The stupidity! It burns!!!! You know, if you would have spent 30 seconds doing a google search, you would have seen that even though there are patents, companies have allowed royalty free distribution in developing countries. Perhaps the companies were feeling overly generous in making their patents free. Or perhaps they felt that it would be good publicity. Either way, poor people in Africa/Asia will not have to pay.. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Number%2010/78%2810%29news.pdf ...genetically modified rice will be grown in developing countries have been boosted with a decision that gives developing countries royalty-free licenses for technologies used to produce so-called golden rice. This has been pointed out to you before. 30 seconds of research would have proved that. Yet for some reason you cling to some false statement about how "expensive" it will be.

"Ideally" is right. Decades of research devoted to trying to solve the problem has made very little progress. Otherwise it would not be a problem anymore... but it is. Reality = 1, segnosaur = 0 As I pointed out before, the problems with nuclear power (such as reprocessing of fuel rods and developing long-term storage solutions) is a political problem, not an engineering one. From: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-yucca-mountain-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all GAO's study found that Energy Secretary Steven Chu's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program was made for policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons, and officials speaking for Chu in 2010 did not cite any technical concerns or safety issues related to the Yucca Mountain site. Unfortunately, whenever some people hear the term "nuclear" they go into panic mode, and regardless of whatever science or statistics you give them, they will continue to stick their fingers in their ears, and shout "La la la... I can't hear you.... Nuclear is evil!"

Now, I'm going to let you both in on a little secret. Now, don't be shocked by what I have to tell you... But, the world is not a perfect place. There, I said it. Yeah, I know, you're probably stunned. Yes, there are corrupt dictatorships in the world. Yes, there is poverty. As well as many other barriers to getting proper food aid to various parts of the world. As much as I would like to waive a little magic wand and make all of the problems go away, it ain't going to happen. Yes, we could ship them all the extra carrots we have. But there's no guarantee that they will actually be distributed to the people that need them. So, the best solution is to allow them to be self sufficient... and allowing them to grow Golden Rice would allow a subsistence farmer to survive without external aid, immune from regional or global politics. Oh, and by the way, 2 other points: - Even if we could distribute our excess food to the 3rd world, I pointed out before that if we stuck to Organic farming techniques only, we'd only have enough food to feed 4 billion people There are 7 billion people in the planet. It is modern "non-organic" farming techniques that have allowed us to have the excess food that we could distribute. - I wonder, if we start shipping our extra carrots to sub-saharan africa and south-east Asia, just how much CO2 will be pumped out by the planes/boats making the deliveries? Ummm... the fact that we're doing one thing to screw up the environment (i.e. urban sprawl) doesn't excuse us doing other things to screw up the environment (using inefficient farming techniques.) It would be like me saying "why is it wrong for me to kill someone, because other people have engaged in armed robbery and haven't been caught". Now, if you want to start a thread complaining about the effect of urban sprawl, go ahead. Heck, I'd probably even agree that we should be building our cities with a higher population density. But that doesn't excuse other types of anti-environmental activity. I am doing it intentionally. Why, because you like to see millions of people suffer?

Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick.... this has already been explained to you. Once again: Rice: Requires ample rainfall, and is often grown by 'flooding' the soil. Grows well in clay soil Carrots: Require well drained soil, without clay So Carrots do not grow well in the areas that Rice grows in. http://vasat.icrisat.org/?q=node/299 http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/cultivation2.html

Once developed, Golden Rice will be given free to subsistence farmers. It can be re-sown every year from the saved harvest. There is no benefit to industry - only poor people. Yup, a point I mentioned to them way back in post 193 (see: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21409&st=180&p=833723entry833723) You see, that's the problem with Manny and GhostHacked... Even when they've already been provided with facts that challenge their opinion, they prefer to repeat their B.S. Why should we pay any attention to what they post if they don't even bother reading what others have stated?

That's only your opinion... No, some things you've said have been downright wrong... Actually, I wasn't wrong on the issue of flu immunnization. The only way you can consider youself "right" is the same way a child does... stick your finger in your ears and go "LA LA LA... I'm not listening" whenever contradictory evidence is presented. I am willing to admit I'm wrong and/or change my views/opinions, if presented with proper facts. On the other hand, someone posting their own 'nonsense' opinions, with no evidence to back them up, is not exactly going to be convincing. Depends on why you consider it not preferable, and that Organic methods are better.... If you consider it perferable that thousands of people will suffer and die needlessly, and that hundreds of acres of forests will be plowed under to grow more farmland to grow crops, then you're right... its preferable to stick to organic methods. Yet steps have been taken to control the risks. Of course, how 'safe' is it to let thousands of people suffer and die from Vitamin A deficiency? How safe is it to plow under forests for farm land because you prefer to use inefficient farming techniques? I see... care to post a few of these "real scientists", and what exactly they're concerned about? Oh, yeah, that's right... you don't concern yourself with things like that. Why should I believe anyone who gets things wrong as often as you do, and who doesn't bother posting any real facts to verify?

Yes, more nuclear means more mining for uranium, more manufacturing, etc. But like I said, nuclear plans generate a heck of a lot of power. Digging out a few pounds of pitchblend to provide me nuclear power for a few years will cause fewer deaths than digging out several hundred pounds of cadmium, copper, etc. or whatever substances they use for Solar power. I personally think Chernobyl is irrelevant... it was a poor reactor design, run by idiots. Not saying the designs used in the western world are perfect, but they're a far better than the Chernobyl design. And yes, there were thousands displaced by the events at Fukishima. I believe they estimate that there will be something like 130 deaths due to it. But guess what? With dozens of nuclear power plants in operation over multiple decades, the overall number of deaths/displacements is, well, minimal. Yes, it would really suck to be some worker who dies of radiation poisoning, or ends up homeless because of the evacuation, but it would also suck to be a worker who dies in an industrial accident at the local solar panel manufacturing plant. (And there are more of them, on average, than people who die from nuclear accidents.)

All I can say is... HA HA HA HA!!!! I still remember some claim on his web site from years back that the U.S. had this big military build up with thousands of troops on the Afghanistan border prior to 9/11, which showed that it was an "inside job". Of course, no such military build up existed, and even when the U.S. acted to overthrow the Taliban, they did it with a small number of actual soldiers, some air power, and local militias. And then of course there's the whole "evidence of demolition during 9/11" bunk. I've seen others post from GlobalResearch so I thought, hey it's acceptable. Not if you want to be taken seriously. And the fact that one person was foolish enough to use them as a source doesn't mean that its a good idea. I've also seen people post information from WhaleTo and Mercola but those aren't exactly respectable either. The key is to consider the source, judge whether they have a reason to be biased and the impact if they end up being wrong. Here's what I find ironic... you claim that you want people to "look for yourself". Yet if you took your own advice and actually investigated the GlobalResearch web site, you would have seen other examples of nonsense on it, which should have made you be cautious of anything they post. I know whenever someone refers to a source I'm not familiar with, I try to learn more about it. That's because when someone posts a reference to something like GlobalReasearch or Infowars, we ask ourselves... is this a well known source, or just some yahoo who's thrown up a web site? Do they have enough staff to verify their stories? How much will they be harmed by posting incorrect materials? Do they benefit more from being inaccurate than they do by being honest? GlobalResearch, Infowars/prison planet, and so many others fail on those points. I agree the information was there right from the start. But for the US media it carried the movie bit as far as it could until people started to understand the real story. Ummm... going back to google, I found other U.S. sources that also point out that the attacks were planned in advance that were published on the 12th. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012/09/12/deadly-embassy-attacks-were-days-in-the-making/57752828/1 You know, I'm always amazed at the "believers", and how they tend to use youtube videos as "proof". I guess its a lot easier to point to some video clip rather than an actual analysis. Now, here's my question... did you actually watch the video? She doesn't say they created Al Qaeda. She says they funded militia groups that they're now fighting against, not specifically al Qaeda. Believe it or not, there are other terrorist and militia organizations out there apart from Al Qaeda.

Ideally you reprocess it. If its done right, all of the energy that you'll need in your life could probably result in the amount of radioactive material you can hold in your hand. After that, you bury it at some place like Yucca mountain. What are the alternatives? Solar/wind? Because they generate less energy per installation, more of them are needed. That means more industrial waste, more mining waste, etc. So yeah, build solar panels and you avoid a handful of radioactive waste. But you end up with other material left over as waste products.

Errr... not really. I've already posted the following link, but I guess since nobody bothers reading things they don't agree with, here it is again: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/21104091117.pdf Overall, there are more deaths caused by solar power than by nuclear. You see, here's the thing... a nuclear plant is big, impressive, and it can be very dangerous. But it also generates a huge amount of power, in a very small, isolated area. Yes, disasters are possible (and I'm under no illusion that they will have perfect safety records), but if you look at the lives lost (per KW/h generated) its actually pretty safe. On the other hand, Solar (and even wind) might seem like the safest thing out there... how can a solar panel hurt anyone? The problem is, each individual panel only generates a limited amount of power. So you need more of them. More manufacturing (which can lead to industrial accidents), more raw materials (so more mining accidents), more accidents during installation. If you look at the number of deaths caused by solar (per Kw/H) its higher than that of nuclear. So, which is more important, a small risk that hundreds might die from a nuclear accident all at once, or a guarantee that hundreds will die, but that those deaths will be spread out over more locations? Errr... probably not likely. It may have a place, but its not going to be the 'main' power source. (I believe one of my earlier postings referred to an article where a nuclear technician pointed out that even solar power 'experts' he's talked to don't think Solar will be the key solution.

That's because the Main Stream Media usually tries to to this thing called "fact checking". yeah, I know, surprising. Guess when you realize that you'll be ridiculed if you get things wrong (whereas Alex Jones just plows right on through.) I've also seen you post from GlobalResearch, another site heavy with nonsense. Doesn't exactly make you look that great. There's a saying... even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. Oh, and by the way.. the attacks happened September 11. Just doing 30 seconds of googling found that the Main Stream Media was already putting out stories that the attack was professionally executed as early as September 12. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/12/libya-us-ambassador.html Except that its not... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/26/terry-glavin-lies-damn-lies-and-the-cias-creation-of-the-taliban/#more-52091 The U.S. did fund various anti-soviet militia groups in Afghanistan, but bin Laden basically did a lot of the building of al Quaeda himself (using a lot of his own money.)

I'm not a socialist but I am an atheist. Perhaps the reason why Christianity receives more criticism than Islam is that for those of us in North America we are more likely to be affected by the actions of Christians than of Muslims. There is very little chance I will have to deal directly with a "radical Muslim" during my life. Muslims make up a relatively small part of the demographics here in Canada, and even fewer are "radical". (Overall, they have very little effect on public policy.) On the other hand, I do see the effect of "Christian" beliefs, and it has the ability to affect me in a much more direct way, from Fundamentalists trying to introduce bogus "creationism/intelligent design" in school, to Catholics trying to restrict abortion. I suspect that at least some socialists feel the same way... spend most of your time dealing with what will actually affect you.