OT: Paul McCartney died 9/11/66

So I don't have a dog in the fight - was to young to like the Beatles and don't really like the Beatles but do like a conspiracy theory.
So has anyone read the "The Memoirs of Billy Shears"?

So essentially Paul McCartney was killed on 9/11/66...interesting date and this guy Billy Shears/Billy Sheahan took over for him at the making of
Seargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band...like i said have no dog in the fight but I caught this piece of tape from Graham Nash from Crosby, Nash and Young saying

This got me to look a little further 12 second clip - if Paul McCartney wasn't playing in Wings then who was? :
Like when Ringo, George and John are referring to Faul?
What does that mean?

Login to view embedded media
So the next video is an hour of Mike Sage of Quay discussing if in 1966 they could replace Paul McCartney what could they do today?

Login to view embedded media

OT: Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power "Fails On Every Count"

It could be argued that the basic arithmetic showing wind power is an economic and societal disaster in the making should be clear to a bright primary school child. Now the Oxford University mathematician and physicist, researcher at CERN and Fellow of Keble College, Emeritus Professor Wade Allison has done the sums. The U.K. is facing the likelihood of a failure in the electricity supply, he concludes.

“Wind power fails on every count,” he says, adding that governments are ignoring “overwhelming evidence” of the inadequacies of wind power, “and resorting to bluster rather than reasoned analysis”.
Professor Allison’s dire warnings are contained in a short paper recently published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He notes that the energy provided by the Sun is “extremely weak”, which is why it was unable to provide the energy to sustain even a small global population before the Industrial Revolution with an acceptable standard of living. A similar point was made recently in more dramatic fashion by the nuclear physicist Dr. Wallace Manheimer. He argued that the infrastructure around wind and solar will not only fail, “but will cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment and be entirely unnecessary”.

In his paper, Allison concentrates on working out the numbers that lie behind the natural fluctuations in the wind. The full workings out are not complicated and can be assessed from the link above. He shows that at a wind speed of 20mph, the power produced by a wind turbine is 600 watts per square metre at full efficiency. To deliver the same power as the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant – 3,200 million watts – it would require 5.5 million square metres of turbine swept area.

It is noted that this should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and other environmentalists. Of course, this concern does not seem to have materialised to date. Millions of bats and birds are calculated to be slaughtered by onshore wind turbines every year. Meanwhile, off the coast of Massachusetts, work is about to start on a giant wind farm, complete with permits to harass and likely injure almost a tenth of the population of the rare North Atlantic Right whale.

When fluctuations in wind speed are taken into account in Allison’s formula, the performance of wind becomes very much worse. If the wind speed drops by half, the power available falls by a factor of eight. Almost worse, he notes, if the wind speed doubles, the power delivered goes up eight times, and the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection.

The effect of the enhanced fluctuations is dramatic, as shown in the graph above. The installed nominal generating capacity in the EU and U.K. in 2021, shown by the brown dashed line, was 236 GW, but the highest daily output was only 103 GW on March 26th. The unreliability is shown to even greater effect in the second graph that plots the wind generated offshore in the U.K. in March last year.


I’m in the minority here…but I would prefer to keep this group INTACT


I’ve watched enough ncaa games this year to know that when we’re healthy , (including mag), we were right there to be very competitive in the ncaa tournament

So …I’m not sure why, other than the bitter snub on selection Sunday coming from the fall off when we slumped post Mag, we don’t want to come back a year wiser , more developed and make a run

We were 9-5 (and shoukd have been 10-4) with our full roster this year , and only two of those wins were OOC cupcakes in late December .

Certainly , Caleb will be missed on the defensive end and toughness ….the reality was miller and Palmquist didn’t get off the bench untik mag got hurt

So, from our core 7 (Paul, cam, Caleb, Mawot, cliff , Derek and Aundre)…6 return

And we add
Gavin Griftths
Baye Ndongo
JaMichael Davis

And hopefully a more developed Antoine wolfolk

Let’s add a 5th year guard and go with it …and save the scholarships for the class of 2024

This has the makings of a very very good team for 2023-2024…picking up from where we left off from the Madison square garden win before injuries reallt got us….that’s much deeper and potentially doesn’t need to thread the needle with such a small holeto be a potential sweet 16 team

Sure …it requires cliff coming back, Paul getting healthy and coming back ready to finish this out right , it requires Hyatt coming back , and Mawot gettinf and staying healthy …

Sone ifs…but I think we are better off staying the course …we were close until the lack of depth really got exposed ..and I think we have fixed that for next year

Let’s stay the course ….