canuckistani

Members
  • Content count

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

116 Good

About canuckistani

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

1,032 profile views
  1. Same problem- not enough catalyst for fuel cell. The air car is a viable option for private transport (i.e., cars) . I don't care what the big oil giants say - i myself am an engineer and i have worked both in the oil industry and manufacturing. The problem with alternative fuel cars is that it isn't scalable to include the bulk majority of transport today and the projected growth.
  2. I don't think people realize that when we talk of clean energy, it isn that clean or renewable. For example: 1. Mining and refining the rare earth materials for solar panels is far, far more 'dirty' than most people imagine. 2. There isn't enough rare earth materials on this planet to make enough solar panels to run our entire grid on solar. 3. Any real effort for renewable will have to be a combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear and tidal energy. 4. Even if we get clean energy, we still need oil for transport. Reason is, there isn't enough lithium on this planet to make enough batteries to replace all cars on the road. That is not factoring in the primary use of lithium: in semiconductor devices that run all computers. One solution is the Indian 'air car', where basically compressed air runs the car, but we cannot do it for heavy freight like semi-trailers. 5. We are always going to need oil for aviation & plastics. Its cleaner to make plastics from oil than from biodiesel. And the energy density of oil is high enough to allow air travel- nothing else is remotely feasible to power an aircraft carrying 100+ people.
  3. He was, for a short period, no doubt, alongside Kesler, our best PK forward. But the last couple of seasons, its undoubtedly been Hansen.
  4. Eh ? 3 years from now, LE is 34. Plenty of 34 year olds do fine in this league,especially forwards. Things start becoming an issue in the last couple of years of his contract, which is true for ANYONE practically not signing a contract fresh out of their ELC contract.
  5. Umm, most 30 year olds are good to go till they are 34-35, if they are high end forwards. At the time of the signing, a 30 year old, which is smack in the 2nd half of a forward's peak, that gets 30+ goals, multiple 20+ goal seasons and also kill penalties, is worth the 6 million I'd say. Maybe a slight overpayment as well, but i'd think its a bargain between 5.5-6 million per annum hit.
  6. he could be 2.8 million dollars of dead-weight for 2 years if his defensive game doesnt pick up. Thats not fatal to the Canucks, but it can be annoying to deal with. I am more concerned about the knock-on effect of the overpayment to the impending future contracts. Banning has a tendency to over-pay and this is not much different.
  7. Sure, i will clarify & correct: I think Hutton is overpaid by the same relative margin as Clarke (i.e., around 50%, not by 25-30% as i erroneously stated) but his deal isn't as bad, because in real dollar terms, Clarke is overpaid by 2.5 million while Hutton is overpaid by 1 million.
  8. Its a domino effect with salary. If you give Hutton +25-35% more than he deserves, then so goes Horvat, Gudbranson, etc. And i don't think overpaying by 25-35% of salary is insignificant in terms of the overall value of the deal. We know Hutton is pretty decent with the puck. We also know that Hutton is pretty mediocre without it - his positioning is mediocre, his sheer ability to muscle around is mediocre, etc. If that doesn't change, this deal would be a less worthwhile deal than Sbisa's, as Sbisa's type of defencemen ( gritty tough guy without the puck, error prone when overhanding the puck, positionally above average) has a greater floor than Hutton type of player.
  9. No, not Clarkson massive. Clarkson got +2.5 more than he deserved. Hutton got +1 million more than he deserves at this point.
  10. 8 years 34 million total.
  11. Way too much for a defence man who is too soft & error-prone without the puck. Would've preferred no more than 2 million. This is massive, massive overpayment.
  12. This thread is just wrong. How can you think that the prospects arnt prospering due to being shielded by the Sedins, when NOBODY in this team for over half a decade can put together a decent PowerPlay without the Sedins ? Even in our cup-run year, we were 'Sedins +Kesler + Edler+Ehrhoff' power play, with the next one having Burrows,Higgins & Raymond !! Normally, the clearest sign that your 2nd line needs first line minutes and 1st line needs 2nd line minutes is the power play. If the non-Sedins unit keeps outperforming the Sedins on the PP, sure. But right now, its the same story in Vancouver as always - hardly any secondary scoring.
  13. Yeah thats what most people want. Just that Management is not 'most people' and that is a good thing sometimes (in this case).
  14. Completely disagree. Edler is the only defence man who can reliably play 22-23 minutes per game. Its kinda silly to knock a 22-23 min guy for falling apart when asked to play 28 minutes. Besides, we know what Edler is : not a top tier defence man but with all the top-tier tools that rarely work together. That is, realistically good enough but more importantly, he is the ONLY lefthanded defence man worth his salt on this team to take on the big names : Sbisa is just LOL and Tryamkin is ways off being a 1/2D (attest 3-4 years best case scenario). Hutton is great with the puck, but he is ordinary without it. IMO, his ceiling is an Ehrhoff and more importantly, mobile defensemen who are good with the puck but mediocre without are not super hard to replace. So if anything, we should trade Hutton and keep Edler around. Our defence currently has 3 members who can be trusted to take the team forward the next 3-4 years and those are Tanev, Edler & Gudbranson. We shouldn't mess with that or our rebuild aspirations will be set back another 2-3 years due to a defence that is too raw.
  15. 'Much' of Asia Minor and North West Africa ? You mean just Turkey and Tunisia ? Also, Turkey was NOT secular till the Ataturk revolution at the end of WWI. Infact, The entire basis of power of the Ottoman Empire, apart from having a kick-ass military, was the Ottoman Sultan was the Khalif..Ie, they were technically 'Pope-king' of Islam. Christians, Jews had Dhimmi status during the Ottoman period, which means they paid extra tax in accordance to the Koran than Muslims and were banned from the military. Btw, it is a common myth that Muslim polities of the near east and north africa were secular in the middle ages. They were not. They were less vicious about religion than western world was, but secularism is separation of church and state. The Emirate of Cordoba, which is seen as one of the most religious tolerant states of its time (particularly contrasting it with the Spanish inquisition that followed immediately after it) was not a secular entity. They were all Islamic Sharia law places, where non-muslims paid a head tax for being non-muslim, had less rights than a muslim in direct legal confrontations, etc. However, if you want secular states of the middle ages, look no further than the Mongols or the Chinese/Southern Indians, where religion did not affect your day to day life in the eyes of the state. History does not say otherwise. History says that virtually every Muslim dominated society implemented Sharia and pretty much the only exceptions are modern day Malaysia and Turkey. Islamism and secularism are fundamentally incompatible. As i said, i am not making simplistic statements, i am simply stating what the Koran directly states and the sharia law code. Muslims have a harder time to assimilate, because the koran is the only book that makes tax code, inheritance law, etc. part of the religion. The more encompassing a religion is, the lesser scope there is of seperation of church and state. That is pretty straightforward.