Add an image
Add a link
September 16, 2012 -- 9:55 PM
posted by Par
< Solicitation >
Hey gang,
So, in a couple of weeks we're doing the Run for the Cure in Vancouver. If you'd like to donate in support, feel free to go to my donation page. Any and all help is appreciated!
Thanks!
< /Solicitation >
September 14, 2012 -- 12:16 PM
posted by Al
Don't think the city is going to bite this time. Not so dazzled by the numbers anymore.
September 14, 2012 -- 10:14 AM
posted by Par
Sorry, I must complain about the Oilers arena deal again.
1. Darryl Katz proposes to help revitalize downtown with a new arena, pledging $100M of his own money ("He's throwing in his own money! What a guy!")
2. The deal with the city involves the City borrowing the aforementioned $100M, and Katz repaying the loan over 35 years; with interest, it's about $5.5M per year. Also, the City will spend $20M in "advertising" costs over the term of the lease. ("You can't expect a businessman to have that much cash just sitting around. Plus it's going to make downtown better! What a guy!")
3. The Katz Group goes back to city council 10 months later and extorts demands asks that the City pony up $6M a year in operating expenditures AND that the City will lease office space in an attached business tower. ("He needs to make his financial commitment in a building from which he will reap 100% of the revenue absolutely ZERO in order to make his financially profitable business profitable. You just don't understand what a guy he is!")
Wow.
I love the Oilers as much as anyone, but this is crazy. In a city that sells out games and sells out jerseys while finishing an average of 29.6th place out of 30 teams for the past three years, you're going to move because you're not making a profit in the city building an arena for you? Eh, fuck off.
September 13, 2012 -- 8:40 PM
posted by alison
Also, following Tony's line about Mike Winters' comics... He's spreading this one across Twitter right now. It is definitely NSFW, but entertaining in the way of his old Gateway ones (i.e. a bit too much information, and a fair bit too graphic). ;)
https://twitter.com/Mike_Wntrz/status/246323644433838080/photo/1/large.
Oh, the good ol' days...
September 13, 2012 -- 8:31 PM
posted by alison
That's fair, Par. "Less bad" is definitely a step forward. ... a baby step, but a step nonetheless. I'm just wary that the processing, which is a good number of extra steps beyond pulp & paper, is rather exorbitant. And none of the article went into the question of where we get all those fancy chemicals etc. in order to make the nanotubes.
For me, it's a matter of trade-offs. Are we making something out of wood because "hey, it's made from wood now!"? Or are we making it because it's actually a less resource-intense process? If we made a similar product from petrochemicals that used fewer steps, required fewer chemicals, and resulted in smaller waste streams, I think I'd probably vote for that. Yeah, it's not made of wood, but what did we have to do to the wood to turn it into not-wood anyway?
I dunno, this bizarre line of work that I'm in has resulted in me looking at full lifecycles of products, from the petroleum refining used to make the fuel to truck the raw materials to the manufacturing facility (be it a sawmill or a farmers' field), to the consumer products (paper, broccoli, etc.), to the resulting waste streams. It's fascinating and infuriating. There are too many variables to compare, and no clear metrics as to HOW to compare them. ... not to mention a great scarcity of data.
rant rant... In the end, I agree. Less bad is better. It's just a matter of PROVING it.
September 11, 2012 -- 10:45 AM
posted by Par
Alison, regarding the nanotubes, I agree that we should treat these kind of change-the-world announcements with skepticism (we've all read way more of them than things that actually change the world exist.)
That said (and recognizing I have little background in these kind of industrial processes), I'm not sure that this production process sounds a whole lot different than, say, pulp and paper production. Maybe I'm wrong, but that, at least, is scalable. (Its environmental impacts are still questionable, of course.)
Still, as far as solutions go, I'm willing to take "less bad" as progress.
September 10, 2012 -- 1:54 PM
posted by Tonestar Runner
September 05, 2012 -- 9:29 PM
posted by alison
