For the 20 years of my life in the US, I have never seen a car burning on the side of the road.
I've seen a car catch fire after an accident. I also knew someone who burned to death after the car she was in caught on fire, she was wearing her seat belt which became jambed. For this very reason I hate mandatory seatbelt laws, if there's the possibility someone will burn to death they should have the choice as to whether or not they will wear a seatbelt. The only thing worse than burning to death is surviving having your body burned.
This paradoxically works out in favor of the trolley lines, given that they tend to attract economic development to them.
Perhaps I'm looking at it wrong but I look at it as saying the use of trolleys attracts economic development like the parable of the broken window, by breaking a window glass you're creating work for the glass maker. However in reality breaking the glass only diverts money when it can be used for a better purpose. Instead of the kid getting the shoes he needs the money is now spent on glass.
It also sounds like the line that using tax money to pay for a new sports stadium brings in new revenue for the area. Not one economic study I've heard of concludes this is true. Some conclude any benefit is smaller than what was advertised. Others conclude there is no benefit at all.
Portland, OR claims that its streetcar line has spurred billions of dollars of investment in the area surrounding it in a very short period of time.
They may claim it but do the numbers support that? Or is it a broken window parable?
Falcon
Oh, mind you I'm not arguing against improving mass transit, I support doing it, but I'd like to see the numbers crunched. It's easy to be over optimistic when you're not spending your own money.
And you missed the entire point of my comparison, which is that this is what would likely happen with broadband, but that it is not possible to make the users pay for the initial buildout because without some infrastructure to begin with, there are no users to pay for it. Just like with the interstates when they were first created.
It was alright that the initial build-out of the interstate highway system was paid for with taxes. The federal government is specifically empowered to work with interstate commerce. My problem is with maintaining and expanding it, once the original interstates were built user fees should have paid to maintain and expand it.
I don't think anyone could have predicted that the wall of that holding pond would suddenly collapse.
It might of been true if spills like it had not happened before. However they have happened prior to the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. There was the Buffalo Creek Flood in 1972. The Martin County sludge spill happened in 2000. And it was 30 tymes larger than the Exxon Valdez spill. Fact is is spills and such do occur. Here "EPA Releases Locations of 44 "High Risk" Coal Ash Sites".
Either way, my point was not about how well they run outdated coal plants. My point was about the reliability of power relative to the financial cost. Damage to a handful of residences out in an extremely rural area could be solved just by requiring them to buy more land around the property and not put holding ponds so close to a river.... In the grand scheme of things, it's a sign of design mistakes from 50 years ago coming back to bite them, not a sign of poor maintenance like we see so consistently with commercial power production.
Potential spills is only part of the problem. Another problem is Mountaitop Removal. Also notice the coal slurry pond above the elementary school in the third photo. Google has more photos as well as maps of Mountaintop Removal. Then there's the CO2 emissions as well as other problems.
What the heck does a botched mining operation in New Mexico have to do with power plants in the Tennessee Valley area?
Mining would not happen on the scale it does if there wasn't a demand. Are you really so lacking in basic intelligence? And it's not just one "botched mining operation". Three nations with the best environmental laws and regulations regarding the nuclear industry and mining are Australia, Canada, and the US. However each have had problems, Google is your friend, or enemy depending on how you want to look at it. Oh that link is just about mining too.
the nonprofit approach has no significant downsides and significant financial upsides. Relative to commercial power, everyone wins by virtue of getting cheaper, more reliable power.
Is that why communism won over capitalism?
Cellular networks never allowed real competition on their networks
Why should cellular networks allow competition on their own networks when competitors could build their own networks. And saying it costs too much to build a network does not belong in reality. Many people in the Third World who may never get landline phone service can get cheap cellphones and service. Even here in the US some homeless have cellphones.
Falcon
Oh, and I expect you to say "you missed by point" again, even though I include the relevant part in my own
do you consider the CO2 from a wild fire, brush fire or forest fire to be man made if the fire was caused by arson.
Ce depend. If a fire is a controlled burn, then no. I'd actually consider it an attempt to prevent more CO2 emissions. If however it's started by someone like that person last year or the year before who started fires so they'd be called a hero then yes. In other words intent does matter some.
If you read a product review, you need to know if it came from an independent source, of if it's some weasel's idea of "guerrilla marketing".
Yea, I learned that years ago. Well relearned it, and I'll probably relearn it again. I have some personal examples from more than 10 years ago. Two were when I was choosing computers and another the monitor. I wanted a computer I could use as a server and another that was a laptop. The PC I choice as the server was a DEC Alpha powered Windows NT4 PC and the laptop was a Gateway. With the Alpha I bought all the market speak about the FX!32 emulator, how it could run almost all software that ran on Windows NT4. Well I was only able to install one software on it I bought. I was able to install a number of freeware/shareware programs though. Later I learned they meant 32bit not 16bit software. For the laptop I went with Gateway because I only read good things about the company, and Gateway had just bought the rights to the Amiga, I thought Gateway would revive it and Amigas were my favorite computers. Well they never did anything with the Amiga, and I had too many problems with the laptop. In the first year alone both the hard disk and motherboard had to be replaced. Because I wanted space for design I wanted a large monitor, and again hearing good things about Nokia monitors I bought a 21" monitor. Unfortunately it didn't display colours accurately. Even after I spend money to ship in it for repair, it still had a bluish-green cast no matter how I adjusted the colours.
I strongly suggest you learn to read financial statements before you do any investing.
BP was only 2,562 M USD net profit for 3 months or only 2.5 Billion not 12 Trillion
I did make a mistake typing a "b" instead of an "m", that doesn't mean I can't read. However by your own statement I can say you don't know about finance. Forget billions of dollars, most scientists don't make millions of dollars a year never mine a quarter. BP's quarterly profits could pay more than 56,000 scientists a million dollars a year. Profits not revenue, which were $56.561.00 "million" with an "m" for the quarter. For the year ending 30 June 2009 BP had revenues of $270,569 million with profits of $42,887 million with an "m". And remember profits come after salaries are paid.
Though not a business owner or business or financial major myself my sister is a Certified Public Accountant with her Masters in Taxation who runs her own accounting business and her husband is a Certified Financial Planner who has worked as a day trader. I've learned some from both.
If you want a port on solid ground, you're going to have to go at least up to Baton Rouge.
Well there are ports to the east and west, in Florida and Texas. I can see it being beneficial to be able to use the Mississippi River, which with the dikes and flood gates is difficult, to go up and down the river.
FWIW, the last time I was in NOLA I had a pretty good view of the city from my hotel.
Though I've wanted to go I've never been to New Orleans. I almost went after Katrina, but I may of been in the way more than a help. Because I don't work and am on disability I have plenty of tyme but little money.
Though I disagree with some of what GP says I have to agree with him here. Europe may of reduced it's own emissions, but it shifted the emissions elsewhere. The report you provided the link to even says the EU "promotion of biofuels in transport" was part of how emissions were reduced. Switching to biofuels only switched where the emissions happens. The third biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gases is now Indonesia. How did that happen? In order to feed Europe with those biofuels forests were burned down and wetland drained to plant oil palm plantations in Indonesia which are used to make biofuels for Europe. Europe is just as responsible for this as if they produced the emissions there.
I'm not sure why you would think that I would care about what a US administration thinks. Perhaps you think former President Bush is a good diviner of scientific truth? Personally I think such an attitude is a bit crazy, but if you love the ex President that much, good for you.
Bush was brought up because like you he was a big denier. Once he was forced to face the facts he could no longer deny.
You're much more likely to get my attention by backing up your opinion with specifics, like scientists, studies, and actual data.
The IPCC, Stern Report, etc. There are plenty of science studies reaching the conclusions you don't want to hear. Meanwhile there are no credible studies that conclude the climate is changing, getting warmer in places.
How did that Kyoto protocol go? It didn't work, and it didn't have the desired affect.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you here. Those who pushed for Kyoto most, especially Europe, didn't keep their agreements. Now it doesn't matter much if we try to do something. Last year China passed the US as the biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gases, and Australia passed the US as the world's biggest per capita emitter. Number 3 emitter, Indonesia, isn't even an industrialized nation.
China has passed the US as the world's greatest Carbon Dioxide emitter. Unless they already know most people probably wouldn't guess who number 3 is, Indonesia. Indonesia became number 3 by burning down forests and draining wetlands to plant oil palm plantations. And what's done with them? Biofuels are made to feed Europe's appetite and reduce it's own Carbon emissions. Oh and India have been building a lot of those coal fired plants too.
What I was shocked about was Australia passed the US as the world largest per capita emitter.
Most of the temperature data is seriously flawed in that there is a great influence of the urban heat island effect on the overall data.
Yea the urban island heat effect can affect measured temperatures, how does thet explain the rising temperatures in Antartcia. How does it explain shrinking glaciers all over the world. What large urban areas are close enough in Kashmir to explain to shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas? What large urban areas are near Mount Kilimanjaro to explain the shrinking glaciers there? Or in the Andes of South America?
Let me get this right, because I ask of the fire was started by humans that means I believe all fires are started by humans?
No, of course it doesn't and I never said that it did.
Why then did you ask me "So let me get this straight: you feel that because it was caused by arson, all of the CO2 is human generated?" Either it was a rhetorical question or you believed I thought all CO2 emissions are caused by humans. I am not am not a mind reader and without some sort of cues, usually gotten in visual contexts, I have no idea which type the question is.
I see a bunch of shifty folks trying to reshape society in the guise of doing something about "climate change"?
I see a minority of folks dictating to the majority of the world how they'll live, or die, so they don't have to give up convenience and comfort.
The above statement of mine is no different than your's.
It's really hard for any action positive or negative to matter 500 years from now.
It is hard to see how things will be in 500 years, no matter what if anything was done. But it's not hard to see what could happen in 50 years. If Global Warming is real, personally I believe in climate change not global warming, melting ice will cause sea levels to rise. Since most people live close to the coasts they will be forced to move, or will have to pay high costs to protect buildings among other costs.
he problem is that mathematical rigor is absent from most environmental studies. This is kinda surprising. For a good overview see this site: http://www.climateaudit.org/
And to counter that site see this one: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. Who should I believe those I can check the qualifications, if they are qualified, or those I don't know the qualification of? All I could find out about Steve McIntyre was that he was a Canadian computer analyst not a climatologists, meteorologist, or had another degree that qualified him to label scientists with the qualifications they are wrong. It says he "won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph" however one of the myth "New Scientist" debunks is the The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong. And notice how that article was updated at "18:03 04 September 2009".
Quite a few highly regarded studies uses statistically dubious methods.
What is dubious is that Steve McIntyre has greater qualifications over the climate than climatologists.
So let me get this straight: you feel that because it was caused by arson, all of the CO2 is human generated?
Let me get this right, because I ask of the fire was started by humans that means I believe all fires are started by humans?
No, I do not believe all fires are started by humans. I do know though that recent fires were made as bad as they were due to the Forest Service's Smokey Bear campaign to stop all fires. Fires are a natural part of the ecology and they help prevent the buildup up of fuel. Because there was an active campaign to put out all forest fires fuel was allowed to build up, which when it did catch on fire created infernos.
I guessed you'd been smoking it already. I live in a modern society. I have all of the benefits of technocracy and progress at my disposal. If you can get by with just a knife, a net and your own urine, then good for you. I'd rather go to a supermarket in my car, thanks very much.
You were the one that brought up about the power going out not me. This is the last sentence of your's "When the power goes out, I'm betting you'll be the first to fire up his diesel generator in order to continue posting such drivel to these forums."
If you don't like me commenting about what you say, in a civilized manor, don't say it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't ja now those things can discharge just by you trying to disconnect them? We're going to have to cut all 5 of these leads at the same tyme.
Falcon
For the 20 years of my life in the US, I have never seen a car burning on the side of the road.
I've seen a car catch fire after an accident. I also knew someone who burned to death after the car she was in caught on fire, she was wearing her seat belt which became jambed. For this very reason I hate mandatory seatbelt laws, if there's the possibility someone will burn to death they should have the choice as to whether or not they will wear a seatbelt. The only thing worse than burning to death is surviving having your body burned.
Falcon
These Boots Are Made For Walkin
Falcon
This paradoxically works out in favor of the trolley lines, given that they tend to attract economic development to them.
Perhaps I'm looking at it wrong but I look at it as saying the use of trolleys attracts economic development like the parable of the broken window, by breaking a window glass you're creating work for the glass maker. However in reality breaking the glass only diverts money when it can be used for a better purpose. Instead of the kid getting the shoes he needs the money is now spent on glass.
It also sounds like the line that using tax money to pay for a new sports stadium brings in new revenue for the area. Not one economic study I've heard of concludes this is true. Some conclude any benefit is smaller than what was advertised. Others conclude there is no benefit at all.
Portland, OR claims that its streetcar line has spurred billions of dollars of investment in the area surrounding it in a very short period of time.
They may claim it but do the numbers support that? Or is it a broken window parable?
Falcon
Oh, mind you I'm not arguing against improving mass transit, I support doing it, but I'd like to see the numbers crunched. It's easy to be over optimistic when you're not spending your own money.
And you missed the entire point of my comparison, which is that this is what would likely happen with broadband, but that it is not possible to make the users pay for the initial buildout because without some infrastructure to begin with, there are no users to pay for it. Just like with the interstates when they were first created.
It was alright that the initial build-out of the interstate highway system was paid for with taxes. The federal government is specifically empowered to work with interstate commerce. My problem is with maintaining and expanding it, once the original interstates were built user fees should have paid to maintain and expand it.
I don't think anyone could have predicted that the wall of that holding pond would suddenly collapse.
It might of been true if spills like it had not happened before. However they have happened prior to the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. There was the Buffalo Creek Flood in 1972. The Martin County sludge spill happened in 2000. And it was 30 tymes larger than the Exxon Valdez spill. Fact is is spills and such do occur. Here "EPA Releases Locations of 44 "High Risk" Coal Ash Sites".
Either way, my point was not about how well they run outdated coal plants. My point was about the reliability of power relative to the financial cost. Damage to a handful of residences out in an extremely rural area could be solved just by requiring them to buy more land around the property and not put holding ponds so close to a river.... In the grand scheme of things, it's a sign of design mistakes from 50 years ago coming back to bite them, not a sign of poor maintenance like we see so consistently with commercial power production.
Potential spills is only part of the problem. Another problem is Mountaitop Removal. Also notice the coal slurry pond above the elementary school in the third photo. Google has more photos as well as maps of Mountaintop Removal. Then there's the CO2 emissions as well as other problems.
What the heck does a botched mining operation in New Mexico have to do with power plants in the Tennessee Valley area?
Mining would not happen on the scale it does if there wasn't a demand. Are you really so lacking in basic intelligence? And it's not just one "botched mining operation". Three nations with the best environmental laws and regulations regarding the nuclear industry and mining are Australia, Canada, and the US. However each have had problems, Google is your friend, or enemy depending on how you want to look at it. Oh that link is just about mining too.
the nonprofit approach has no significant downsides and significant financial upsides. Relative to commercial power, everyone wins by virtue of getting cheaper, more reliable power.
Is that why communism won over capitalism?
Cellular networks never allowed real competition on their networks
Why should cellular networks allow competition on their own networks when competitors could build their own networks. And saying it costs too much to build a network does not belong in reality. Many people in the Third World who may never get landline phone service can get cheap cellphones and service. Even here in the US some homeless have cellphones.
Falcon
Oh, and I expect you to say "you missed by point" again, even though I include the relevant part in my own
do you consider the CO2 from a wild fire, brush fire or forest fire to be man made if the fire was caused by arson.
Ce depend. If a fire is a controlled burn, then no. I'd actually consider it an attempt to prevent more CO2 emissions. If however it's started by someone like that person last year or the year before who started fires so they'd be called a hero then yes. In other words intent does matter some.
Falcon
If you read a product review, you need to know if it came from an independent source, of if it's some weasel's idea of "guerrilla marketing".
Yea, I learned that years ago. Well relearned it, and I'll probably relearn it again. I have some personal examples from more than 10 years ago. Two were when I was choosing computers and another the monitor. I wanted a computer I could use as a server and another that was a laptop. The PC I choice as the server was a DEC Alpha powered Windows NT4 PC and the laptop was a Gateway. With the Alpha I bought all the market speak about the FX!32 emulator, how it could run almost all software that ran on Windows NT4. Well I was only able to install one software on it I bought. I was able to install a number of freeware/shareware programs though. Later I learned they meant 32bit not 16bit software. For the laptop I went with Gateway because I only read good things about the company, and Gateway had just bought the rights to the Amiga, I thought Gateway would revive it and Amigas were my favorite computers. Well they never did anything with the Amiga, and I had too many problems with the laptop. In the first year alone both the hard disk and motherboard had to be replaced. Because I wanted space for design I wanted a large monitor, and again hearing good things about Nokia monitors I bought a 21" monitor. Unfortunately it didn't display colours accurately. Even after I spend money to ship in it for repair, it still had a bluish-green cast no matter how I adjusted the colours.
Falcon
I strongly suggest you learn to read financial statements before you do any investing.
BP was only 2,562 M USD net profit for 3 months or only 2.5 Billion not 12 Trillion
I did make a mistake typing a "b" instead of an "m", that doesn't mean I can't read. However by your own statement I can say you don't know about finance. Forget billions of dollars, most scientists don't make millions of dollars a year never mine a quarter. BP's quarterly profits could pay more than 56,000 scientists a million dollars a year. Profits not revenue, which were $56.561.00 "million" with an "m" for the quarter. For the year ending 30 June 2009 BP had revenues of $270,569 million with profits of $42,887 million with an "m". And remember profits come after salaries are paid.
Though not a business owner or business or financial major myself my sister is a Certified Public Accountant with her Masters in Taxation who runs her own accounting business and her husband is a Certified Financial Planner who has worked as a day trader. I've learned some from both.
Falcon
Unfortunately, with the biggest polluters being companies
Not in the US. The government is the biggest polluter in the US.
Falcon
If you want a port on solid ground, you're going to have to go at least up to Baton Rouge.
Well there are ports to the east and west, in Florida and Texas. I can see it being beneficial to be able to use the Mississippi River, which with the dikes and flood gates is difficult, to go up and down the river.
FWIW, the last time I was in NOLA I had a pretty good view of the city from my hotel.
Though I've wanted to go I've never been to New Orleans. I almost went after Katrina, but I may of been in the way more than a help. Because I don't work and am on disability I have plenty of tyme but little money.
Falcon
If it is not real then there's nothing to debate. So that can not be the real debate. The real debate is what to do, if anything, if it is real.
it seems to be that warmer weather would increase crop yield, right?
Yea, we need more poison ivy. Meanwhile some crop yields are lower with higher levels of CO2.
Falcon
How did that Kyoto protocol go? It didn't work, and it didn't have the desired affect
The EU15 are on target to meet the Kyoto limits
Though I disagree with some of what GP says I have to agree with him here. Europe may of reduced it's own emissions, but it shifted the emissions elsewhere. The report you provided the link to even says the EU "promotion of biofuels in transport" was part of how emissions were reduced. Switching to biofuels only switched where the emissions happens. The third biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gases is now Indonesia. How did that happen? In order to feed Europe with those biofuels forests were burned down and wetland drained to plant oil palm plantations in Indonesia which are used to make biofuels for Europe. Europe is just as responsible for this as if they produced the emissions there.
Falcon
I'm not sure why you would think that I would care about what a US administration thinks. Perhaps you think former President Bush is a good diviner of scientific truth? Personally I think such an attitude is a bit crazy, but if you love the ex President that much, good for you.
Bush was brought up because like you he was a big denier. Once he was forced to face the facts he could no longer deny.
You're much more likely to get my attention by backing up your opinion with specifics, like scientists, studies, and actual data.
The IPCC, Stern Report, etc. There are plenty of science studies reaching the conclusions you don't want to hear. Meanwhile there are no credible studies that conclude the climate is changing, getting warmer in places.
How did that Kyoto protocol go? It didn't work, and it didn't have the desired affect.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you here. Those who pushed for Kyoto most, especially Europe, didn't keep their agreements. Now it doesn't matter much if we try to do something. Last year China passed the US as the biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gases, and Australia passed the US as the world's biggest per capita emitter. Number 3 emitter, Indonesia, isn't even an industrialized nation.
Falcon
As evidence mounts that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming isn't the disaster the chicken littles have been preaching for the last 2 decades
What evidence is this?
To date a lot of the proxy data
To date a lot of the myths from deniers have been debunked.
Falcon
China has passed the US as the world's greatest Carbon Dioxide emitter. Unless they already know most people probably wouldn't guess who number 3 is, Indonesia. Indonesia became number 3 by burning down forests and draining wetlands to plant oil palm plantations. And what's done with them? Biofuels are made to feed Europe's appetite and reduce it's own Carbon emissions. Oh and India have been building a lot of those coal fired plants too.
What I was shocked about was Australia passed the US as the world largest per capita emitter.
Falcon
I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 has any affect whatsoever on global climate
How do you think Greenhouse Gases got that name? In a greenhouse they increase temperatures. Science not needed, though it can validate it.
Falcon
Am I the only one who thought of a supervillain hideout while reading the title?
That's been done.
Falcon
My new 42" TV uses slightly less power than my older 32" TV because the EU brought in laws to help countries meet their Kyoto agreements.
You didn't happen to post comments in Saturday's discussion on California Moving Forward With Big-Screen TV Power Restrictions?
Falcon
Most of the temperature data is seriously flawed in that there is a great influence of the urban heat island effect on the overall data.
Yea the urban island heat effect can affect measured temperatures, how does thet explain the rising temperatures in Antartcia. How does it explain shrinking glaciers all over the world. What large urban areas are close enough in Kashmir to explain to shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas? What large urban areas are near Mount Kilimanjaro to explain the shrinking glaciers there? Or in the Andes of South America?
Falcon
Let me get this right, because I ask of the fire was started by humans that means I believe all fires are started by humans?
No, of course it doesn't and I never said that it did.
Why then did you ask me "So let me get this straight: you feel that because it was caused by arson, all of the CO2 is human generated?" Either it was a rhetorical question or you believed I thought all CO2 emissions are caused by humans. I am not am not a mind reader and without some sort of cues, usually gotten in visual contexts, I have no idea which type the question is.
Falcon
I see a bunch of shifty folks trying to reshape society in the guise of doing something about "climate change"?
I see a minority of folks dictating to the majority of the world how they'll live, or die, so they don't have to give up convenience and comfort.
The above statement of mine is no different than your's.
It's really hard for any action positive or negative to matter 500 years from now.
It is hard to see how things will be in 500 years, no matter what if anything was done. But it's not hard to see what could happen in 50 years. If Global Warming is real, personally I believe in climate change not global warming, melting ice will cause sea levels to rise. Since most people live close to the coasts they will be forced to move, or will have to pay high costs to protect buildings among other costs.
Falcon
It was a resposne to the general comment "Corals *worldwide* are dying." But since you ask (and a fair question, too):
Okay, thanks.
Falcon
he problem is that mathematical rigor is absent from most environmental studies. This is kinda surprising. For a good overview see this site: http://www.climateaudit.org/
And to counter that site see this one: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. Who should I believe those I can check the qualifications, if they are qualified, or those I don't know the qualification of? All I could find out about Steve McIntyre was that he was a Canadian computer analyst not a climatologists, meteorologist, or had another degree that qualified him to label scientists with the qualifications they are wrong. It says he "won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph" however one of the myth "New Scientist" debunks is the The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong. And notice how that article was updated at "18:03 04 September 2009".
Quite a few highly regarded studies uses statistically dubious methods.
What is dubious is that Steve McIntyre has greater qualifications over the climate than climatologists.
Falcon
So let me get this straight: you feel that because it was caused by arson, all of the CO2 is human generated?
Let me get this right, because I ask of the fire was started by humans that means I believe all fires are started by humans?
No, I do not believe all fires are started by humans. I do know though that recent fires were made as bad as they were due to the Forest Service's Smokey Bear campaign to stop all fires. Fires are a natural part of the ecology and they help prevent the buildup up of fuel. Because there was an active campaign to put out all forest fires fuel was allowed to build up, which when it did catch on fire created infernos.
Falcon
I guessed you'd been smoking it already. I live in a modern society. I have all of the benefits of technocracy and progress at my disposal. If you can get by with just a knife, a net and your own urine, then good for you. I'd rather go to a supermarket in my car, thanks very much.
You were the one that brought up about the power going out not me. This is the last sentence of your's "When the power goes out, I'm betting you'll be the first to fire up his diesel generator in order to continue posting such drivel to these forums."
If you don't like me commenting about what you say, in a civilized manor, don't say it.
Falcon