AtrusBatleth

If they receive fair market value for the excess power, then that's fair. But the market value changes throughout the day (every 5 minutes in typical markets). Most rooftop solar installers sell their excess power at the same averaged rate that customers pay (net metering), which is NOT the price that the utility is paying to supply that power on any given moment. The excess solar is sold back at a time of day when the market price is low, and they buy back power at the peak when the market price is high. When time-of-day pricing is fairly accounted for, the cost benefits of solar start to vanish. It is not solar installers that are subsidizing my power needs, but I who am subsidizing their unbalanced power needs. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

I know what you mean. I'm your northern neighbour here in Manitoba. Hydro power, we'll sell you some more if you like. On demand and reliable. I agree. Hydro is great if your region has the capacity. Unfortunately the US has developed about all the hydro it practically can already. I suspect as we continue to shutdown our coal and nuclear plants, we will be buying more hydro power from you. As I recall that's what New England had to do when they pushed for early retirement of their larger coal and nuclear plants. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Adding renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) for electric generation has some rather interesting consequences to our electric grid, and I think a real-world example might help to illustrate. First, for those who might not know much about the electric grid, you need to understand that the electricity you are using right now, is being generated right now. This very second. If you turn on a lightswitch, the power plant supplying your power needs to increase it's output immediately; if it doesn't, then the extra drain on the grid will reduce the line voltage (in electricity, voltage is like pressure in a city water pipe; open too many faucets and the system pressure goes down). Fortunately with a large enough grid, the extra power from the light you turned on will reduce the line voltage by a negligible amount, and also might coincidentally line up with another customer turning off an equally sized light at the same moment. But even with a large grid, the total power being consumed (called the demand) is changing with time. The larger the grid, the more slow and predictable that change is, but the demand still goes up during the day, usually peaks in the early evening when people are getting home from work, and then goes down at night. Now for the real-world example. The attached picture shows a typical weekly demand forecast in the fall for a midwest electric grid. First notice the top line (dark blue). This is the total demand that needs to be supplied, in units of MW. The first day on this forecast is a Wednesday, and you'll notice the demand gets lower on Saturday and Sunday. It also gets lower every night, but it never gets below about 3500MW. This is called the "baseload." Before renewables came around, the grid was supplied by two types of plants: baseload plants, and peaker or load following plants. Baseload plants are designed to operate at a steady power level that optimizes the cost of operation (cheapest cost per MW). Peaker plants are designed to cycle on and off, ramping up and down in power to follow the changing demand curve. Nuclear and coal stations make for great baseload plants, while natural gas stations are ideal for peaker plants because they can ramp up and down power rapidly without any negative consequences to plant equipment. But for a natural gas plant to operate at steady power, it typically cannot compete with nuclear and coal in terms of cost per MW, which is why utilities would only use them as peaker plants. Now enter renewables. The picture shows the forecast solar generation in yellow (it is pretty minimal in this region), and wind generation in green (much more significant). The red line represents the net demand, minus wind and solar generation. The red line is now what the nuclear, coal, and natural gas plants need to produce with renewables on the grid. Sometimes the wind is strong, such as in the early morning of 9/27. But that means the "baseload" is now reduced to about 1700MW. So what do you do with 3500MW of baseload generating capacity when the new baseload is only 1700MW? It means traditionally baseload power plants now need to reduce their output and become semi-peaker plants. This presents a number of problems for nuclear and coal plants. For one, they were designed to operate at a steady power, so ramping up and down frequently causes increased probability of equipment failures and maintenance costs. For two, there is some minimum power level that they cannot go lower than without shutting down completely, and once they shutdown it may take hours or even days to start back up again. For three, they were designed to optimize plant efficiency at rated full power, so whenever they operate below full power they are much less efficient. Operating less efficiently means the cost per MW goes up, making them less likely to be the utility's generator of choice. This cost difference gets even more extreme when you consider that electricity is purchased and sold on a power market much like the stock market. Each power generator determines its cost of operation and submits a bid to supply a certain power for a certain price. The market takes the cheapest generators first, then the next cheapest, and so on until the forecasted demand is satisfied. The most expensive generator is what determines the price for electricity at that moment, and the ones that bid cheaper are therefore making profit. Renewables can bid extremely low, because their generation costs are artificially low due to a myriad of subsidies, some for initial construction and others that continue during the lifetime. So renewables are always preferred. So what if the forecast is so low at night (like the morning of 9/27) but will go back up again in the morning? Of course the natural gas plants can shutdown easily, but with the demand so low some of the nuclear and coal plants will also need to shutdown. But then they wouldn't be able to startup in time for the increased demand in the morning, so they keep operating. In order to have somewhere to send the electricity they're making, they actually PAY renewable generators to stop generating. So in the early morning of 9/27, those nuclear and coal plants are taking a loss because they are paying more to windmill generators than they make for selling their power. Even with this arrangement (which windmill operators love), if the utility forces windmills to not run too often, they actually get fined and penalized by the regulator for not utilizing the wind generation that stakeholders invested in. This is in addition to the continuing subsidies per MW that renewable generators get. So there is a very strong financial incentive for utilities to maximize generation from installed renewable capacity, even if demand is low. But we're adding renewables to the grid, so doesn't that mean we can start permantnely shutting down those non-renewable plants as no longer needed? Isn't that the whole goal of going renewable? Unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way. Because renewables are less reliable, less consistent. For example, on this weekly forecast wind is generating over half of the demand in the early morning of 9/27. Hurray for wind! But look at the evening peak on 10/1. The wind is pretty low, right when the demand is highest, so almost all of that peak demand (about 5000MW) needs to be supplied from non-renewable sources. The solution most utilities have pursued is to replace aging baseload plants that can't cycle power very efficiently with natural gas plants that can. This way they take the renewable generation when the weather cooperates, but can rely on natural gas as backup for when the weather doesn't. Remember that natural gas plants make great peaker plants. They can ramp up and down rapidly, shutdown completely and startup again within minutes, and their efficiency is about the same regardless of what power level they're opeating at. This is why you see such an increase in natural gas plants. They produce less CO2 per MW than coal, that's true, but that's not really the driving force for replacing coal with natural gas. It's because utilities now need peaker plants that can deliver nearly the full grid capacity to serve as backup for inconsistent renewables. But for now, this system works. It helps that fracking has drastically increased the economically recoverable reserves of natural gas. If not for abundantly cheap natural gas, this grid system would cost a lot more to operate. And nuclear and coal plants, now being forced to operate less efficiently, are having a hard time competing with cheap natural gas and are therefore shutting down. But we are far more dependent on natural gas now than we used to be. Not just the extraction of natural gas, but its delivery via rail or pipeline. This added reliance has already resulted in some supply disruptions during midwest winters, when on extremely cold days the natural gas for heating homes was prioritized (rightly so) and there wasn't enough supply left over to run all the natural gas plants which had to reduce output (luckily there were still enough nuclear and coal plants available to pickup the slack during these times). While this example focuses more on the effect of wind generation, solar generation has it's own interesting effects. Solar generation peaks in the middle of the day, steadily getting lower as the sun lowers. But the demand in the attached example stays consistently high throughout the day (at least on weekdays), and peaks in the early evening just as solar generation is reaching near zero. This makes the net demand (red line in the attached picture) get low during the middle of the day, but then rapidly skyrocket to it's maximum during the evening peak. This is commonly referred to as the "duck curve" (because apparently the curve resembles the shape of a duck, but I don't really see it). For a grid with a large amount of solar generation (which is not the attached example), this also favors adding natural gas capacity to backup the solar generation. Natural gas wins again! Speakers corner is for us to get on our soapbox, so that's what I've done. But I do sincerely hope some of you reading this have a better appreciation now for how the grid operates, and maybe even are interested enough to do some further research of your own. If you want to learn more about this, I highly recommend you lookup your local independent system operator (ISO) and poke around their website. There's MISO in the central region, CAISO in California, NYISO in New York, etc. Contact them and ask for a tour of their control center. If you think I'm just blowing hot air and wasted your time, well it's just my soapbox and you can keep walking by pretty easily. Blue skies. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

I see. So you're going with the "you shouldn't own your own home, because you'll have to pay for the maintenance yourself" position. Yeah, when home improvements are made, they must be maintained. Rarely is that reason to not make them. I'm in favor of making an informed cost/benefit/risk decision. To use the homeowner analogy, there are many pros and cons of homeownership vs. renting. If a friend of mine thinks they should buy a home where the mortgage is $800/mo vs rent a comparable home for $1000/mo because "it will save me money", yeah I'm going to remind them of the true cost of homeownership. If they have considered the added costs of insurance, routine repairs, periodic renovations, etc, and they still think they will save money, then fine. In the case of electricity, I am very satisfied with getting my money's worth from my local utility. They provide a reliable dependable service at a reasonable cost and I don't have to think about any of it. I just turn on the switch and I can trust the power will always be there, day or night, for my entire lifetime. I'm not particularly interested in devoting my time and resources to getting into the utility business on my own small scale, but to each his own. If you want to go off-grid, go right ahead. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

You do get that solar is the least risky energy source of all, right? If the sun goes out, everyone's screwed, not just the folks who have solar panels. I didn't think I would have to explain this, but the future risk I was referring to was a problem with your solar cells, inverters, and/or batteries. I was not referring to the sun going out. And the supply risk was referring to a string of cloudy days or perhaps partial cell damage that prevent fully charging batteries, or diminished battery capacity or unexpected high usage that results in an unplanned outage. Which is why you do a bunch of studies before getting solar installed that look at the average expected amount of sun, the intensity (rate of production) as well as the expected usage. You then decide how many cells to put on your roof. Let me ask you this - do you always put exactly enough gas in your car to JUST get to your destination? Of course not. You make sure you have an excess. When you look at your solar requirements you do the same. You factor in worst case usages and production and go from there. At least you do if you've got any sense. That gives you a total cost for installation. For us, the ROI was about 9 years with every part having a minimum of 20 years warranty. That said, for us it didn't make sense at the time. I'm rethinking it now. There are also a bunch of ways to purchase solar. If you can afford to buy it outright you're not taking on any financial risk. In fact you're adding value to your home. If you choose to lease the equipment that's got it's own issues, as does simply letting a solar company install on your home for free and a guaranteed monthly payment that's less than your local electricity supplier. It's not for everyone and it's still a developing technology, but sure as shit fossil fuels ARE going to run out. That's a fact. We'd better have something in place before that happens because if we're scrambling in an emergency when that happens everything will cost 10x more and be 10x less effective. To be clear, I was talking about going completely off-grid and supplying your own power independently. When you are 100% responsible for your electricity supply, plenty of unexpected things can happen, which would still present a financial risk even if you paid outright for the solar installation. That's why most smart people would buy insurance to cover things like a hail storm, batteries losing capacity 10 years down the road, or a flood in your house that damages your battery bank/inverters, etc. If you are completely off-grid and are covered with full insurance, without any subsidies, and your ROI is 9 years, I'd like to see your math. But if you're still connected to the grid, it's not going to be an honest comparison given that you have an unfair advantage on the power market pricing. For example, when some regions in Hawaii started enforcing time-of-day pricing in an attempt to level the playing field, many homeowners found that the ROI on rooftop solar was much further out and no longer cost-justified. And if your insurance has some exceptions that would not be covered, then there is still future risk you are taking. When you buy your power from a utility, all those risks and insurance are already factored into the rate that you pay, which is why it is an apples-to-oranges comparison when homeowners "think" they are saving money, but really they are just increasing their risk (or robbing from other ratepayers in the case of net metering). Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

I am making things better (and cheaper) for the rest of the grid. No, you're not. At least not if you benefit from fixed net metering (I don't know what region you are in), which was what I am referring to. You are supplying the grid with your excess power in the middle of the day, then receiving power from the grid in the evening. With more solar on the grid there is less demand for other sources during mid-day which results in low prices on the power market. During the early evening when solar generation is waning yet the overall demand is reaching the peak (as people get home from work), prices are high on the power market. Other supply sources need to ramp up even more dramatically because solar generation is going down just as demand is needed the most. So with net metering, you get to sell power for more than it's worth and buy power for less than it's worth. Sweet deal for you. Bad deal for the other utility customers. Just Google the duck curve. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

You do get that solar is the least risky energy source of all, right? If the sun goes out, everyone's screwed, not just the folks who have solar panels. I didn't think I would have to explain this, but the future risk I was referring to was a problem with your solar cells, inverters, and/or batteries. I was not referring to the sun going out. And the supply risk was referring to a string of cloudy days or perhaps partial cell damage that prevent fully charging batteries, or diminished battery capacity or unexpected high usage that results in an unplanned outage. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Wasnt the original post about how rooftop solar sales were up because of outages, such as to prevent forest fires from overheated long-distance transmission lines? If California grid reliability is improving (it may well be, but the demand curve is still getting more erratic, but newer NG plants are better at responding to those instabilities), then fewer people should be motivated to switch to rooftop solar. Why then draw attention to the recent power outages? Regarding $3/watt, I am skeptical that is unsubsidized. That is well in the range for homeowner installation cost, AFTER subsidies. Are you perhaps thinking only of the federal tax credit that recently expired? Because there are other subsidies from both federal and state levels (or even more local regions). If you are fortunate enough to live in a net metering region, there are additional hidden subsidies being paid by your non-rooftop-solar ratepayers. Fortunate for you that is. If you want to go off-grid entirely, more power to ya. But unless your independent power system includes battery banks with a full gaurunteed warranty of the complete system (solar cells, inverters, and batteries including disposal costs) for the entire lifetime, then you're not really considering the true cost of that system. Even if your local solar salesman convinced you it would save you money, you're really just taking on additional long-term financial and supply risk in exchange. If you truly factored in those added risks and future costs, you're not going to be saving any money vs staying hooked up to your local utility. But like I said, if you want to go off-grid then have at it. But if you are staying connected to the grid then you're only making things more complicated and costly for the rest of us. There's good reason why some utilities put a limit on what percentage of homes can install local distributed generation yet still stay connected and reap all the benefits of the grid. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

I have to agree with gowlerk. You probably get notices about board elections for your bank, investment fund, work union, employer corporate board, etc. Do you actively participate in those elections and meetings? Even in political elections which have far more impact, the vast majority of people just show up to vote on election day (and a primary if you're lucky), never going to any local party meetings or meet-and-greets, etc. Probably 99% of USPA members don't know who is on the BOD, what they do, nor do they really care. I'll admit, I'm one of them. I appreciate what the USPA does, I think they genuinely try to promote safety and such, and for that and the magazine I get, I'm happy to pay my annual dues. Do I support contributions to the museum? Probably not, but since I don't play any active role in the organization I don't really have a right to complain. Maybe some day I'll have enough interest to attend a BOD meeting (I was surprised to discover there was a recent one in Wisconsin, where I could have actually attended easily). But for now, I'm happy being part of the 99% that don't give a damn what goes on at BOD meetings as long as I can show up at my local DZ and have some fun once in awhile. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Right there is where you lose every last shred of credibility. You may as well be claiming that Earth is a flat disk instead of an oblate spheroid. Science isn't something in which one can believe or not; science is something one understands, or doesn't. Huh? Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to a red herring: something that distracts from a relevant issue. I wasn't commenting on whether the climate is changing (I think it is), merely that it is a distraction from the more relevant man-made issues causing disruption of power and lines overheating and causing fires: inadequate line maintenance and planning for transmission needs due in part to renewable energy policies, not to mention the increased building near known fire-prone regions and policies to reduce smaller fire risks that, ironically, actually contribute to larger fire risks (by accumulating dry material that would normally burn off). Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Check the incidents forum. I'm a little surprised Bill Dause would say it like that but maybe he was being sarcastic. Skydivers don't do sarcasm. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Rooftop solar is close to the load, I'll grant you that. It also doesn't supply much of the total and is far too expensive without being propped up with substantial subsidies (and is not dispatchable, forcing the utility to take it even at the expense of grid stability). I was referring to utility scale wind/solar being difficult on transmission. Yes wind farms have their own lines to tie them to an existing main, but it's the load on the main that gets strained. Granted much of this transmission infrastructure needs updating regardless, but those upgrades and repairs have been accelerated thanks to all the new renewable supply being added in distant areas (just one of many hidden costs that wind/solar get a free pass on). The easiest thing for our grid is to have central baseload plants near urban areas (such as fossil and nuclear) with gas peaker plants and supplemental wind/solar. Too much wind or solar causes a ripple effect of stability problems from what other plants need to do to accommodate. People take for granted all the work that goes on behind the scenes to supply that reliable electricity. It would be worth everyone's time to lookup your local transmission operator and ask for a tour of their control center. As is often the case, climate change is just a red herring. Poor long term planning and state energy legislation are far more to blame for shutting down customers power, not warmer climates. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

No doubt people in California are being forced to supply their own power at much greater expense. You see, California residents are in a hell of their own making. Mandates to supply x% renewable power has led to large deployment of wind and solar by utilities. But because most of that wind and solar power cannot be sited close to where it is needed, this puts much more strain on the transmission lines which are now being run so high capacity that they overheat and droop more frequently. Also large capacity nuclear and fossil must remain available for the many times when wind and solar production are low but demand is high. California has a serious case of Not In My Back Yard and prefers to import that power from out of state in those conditions, putting even more strain on transmission lines. The Arizona ballot to mandate 50% renewables, if it passes, will only make matters worse. The way the power market pricing is structured, wind and solar generation are prioritized above all else (because their prices are artificially low). This requires conventional generators (fossil, nuclear, hydro) to ramp down or shutdown altogether when the wind/solar generation is high, even if the demand is low. The Palo Verde nuclear plant is the largest nuclear site in the country and exports a lot of its power to California. But nuclear plants cannot "turn on a dime" and if they shutdown, it takes a couple days to start back up again. If Arizona mandates 50% renewable, it will require Palo Verde to adjust its power and shutdown frequently, something the plant was not designed to do, and it will become uneconomical. Thus if the measure passes, Palo Verde will have no choice but to shutdown permanently. Then when demand is high but wind and solar are not cutting it, both Arizona and California will be royally screwed. Planned rolling blackouts will be a regular occurrence as it is in many 3rd world countries. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Typical American! Wait, you aren't even American! What makes you assume NASA had anything to do with that picture? It's an understandable mistake given that practically every statement in the article, and most of the other pictures, are credited as coming from NASA. But technically you are correct; the first photo of the not-so-happy looking astronauts came from the Russian agency. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Voting out a scumbag politician is one thing, but the damage done by a scumbag Justice nominated and confirmed by scumbag pols goes on and on and on and on... But it doesn't have to go on and on, that's my point. It's only a lifetime appointment because Congress LETS them stay, and we control Congress. If enough of us don't think justices are upholding the constitution, we have the means to impeach them. Sure it's never been done, but there's a first time for everything. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

The people have representatives. We vote for them. They have the power to appoint, confirm, and impeach justices. If you don't like what your representatives are doing (or not doing), then take it up with them and vote them out if need be. That's my opinion. Opening up SCJ to popular vote is asking for even more trouble and politics. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Thanks folks, I'll try these out. I didn't even know the terminology to use, but now I do: concept album. This should keep me busy for several more trips, but if others want to contribute their favorites, the more the merrier. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

I make a 5-6 hour drive on a regular basis and like to listen to music. Until recently I typically listen to random songs on shuffle on internet radio, but lately I have been enjoying listening to entire albums. I'm looking for recommendations. Ideally something that is intended to be listened as a complete album, not just a collection of independent songs. Something with recurring themes or continuing story (which seems to be a dying art form). For example, I recently finished a couple Pink Floyd albums and am working through several Rush. What are some of your favorites that form a cohesive album experience? Not looking for rap or country, or something loaded with profanity (I'm driving with my family), but pretty much anything else is game. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

There are also some DZs that dropped out of the GM program merely because it was not worth the additional fee, since most of the alleged services/benefits of being a GM are really benefits that apply to individual members already so there is nothing gained by the DZO. At least that is the reason one DZO told me. Which leads me to a related question: if USPA has revoked GM DZs for repeated violations, where would I go to look that up? Is there a public record of such decisions that jumpers could use to do a DZ "background check"? Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

It doesn't necessarily mean the DZ is safer because of the USPA membership, but in my mind it's a matter of correlation. Those DZs that are doing their best to enforce the BSRs and promote a good safety culture are more likely to want to join as a member, because if you're doing most of the work you might as well take that last step and be USPA sanctioned. Whereas those DZs that are a bit more sketchy are more likely to not bother. So, if I have no additional information on a DZ (perhaps a better way of phrasing the question than "all things being equal"), yes I would choose the USPA sanctioned DZ. That doesn't mean a whole lot though, because in reality I would seek additional information about a prospective DZ and the USPA rating would amount to a hill of beans. I don't even think to ask if a DZ is a group member or not. I would like it if the rating actually meant something, as in USPA revoking membership for organizational violations. A graded approach would be nice, so it's not all-or-nothing, which I suspect is one reason why USPA is hesitant to revoke membership which could be perceived as a very harsh reaction to what may be minor violations. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

I was telling my dad one day about the World View Enterprises stratosphere balloons and how they can hold a commercial payload over the same spot for months by taking advantage of different air currents that go in different directions at different altitudes. If they start going off course, they just go higher or lower to catch a current in their favor. To my surprise, my dad told me that some hot air balloonists do the same thing. He had worked as a traveling ground crew for some balloon accuracy landing contest. They would carry a helium tank and occasionally release helium balloons to observe which way the air currents were going above them. While I get that there is a lot of special skill involved in that kind of accuracy landing, it does suggest that with the right experience even balloons don't HAVE to land in some random field. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

The subject led me to believe you thought the new sub was a WASTE of taxpayer's dollars, so I was confused. I agree our soldiers do a lot for us and I am thankful. Serving on a sub is a unique service; some co-workers and I long ago had noticed a correlation between former sub drivers and a certain kind of crazy, like a just-slightly-mad quirkiness. We wondered if it was the result of being in a sub for months at a time, or if it took a certain kind of crazy to WANT to serve on a sub. I think the latter, although I liked the thought of being on a sub and may have joined in college if not for getting married, so I'm not sure what that says about me. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

So... what? I don't get what the temperature has to do with anything. I feel like I'm missing something you intended to convey. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Just keep working with your instructors. Maybe ask for different instructors; people have different learning and teaching styles and perhaps you just have not found the right fit yet. Those 6 jumps of yours are not failures though. Even if you don't advance to the next level, you're still getting practice in freefall, you're still getting instructor coaching, you're still gaining experience flying your canopy. Try to remember that you still get to throw yourself out of a plane and have fun. Every jump should be fun in some sense. At my taekwondo school the instructor has a saying about belt testing: you can either pass and be promoted, or it's a "no change." I.e , it's not a failure, you're just not ready YET to be promoted. And usually it's in your head, not a lack of skills. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

I still remember being surprised by the unexpected realism in Netflix Travelers episode "17 minutes". I mean other than the repeated dying, but that was sort of necessitated by the plot. And now I am sad because I don't think they are bringing that show back and I loved it. Max Peck What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?