Y2HH

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) Maybe instead of parroting newspapers and blogs, its time to think for ourselves. And about ourselves. I'm sick of the US getting involved in all of these uncivilized (IMO) countries. I'm fed up to the point that if they want to slaughter themselves, have at it...and leave us out of it. Kill one of their dictators, and another one takes their place and after a few years picks up where the former let off. We spend tons of money, and nothing gets accomplished.

Whenever Oz calls Will Ohman out of the pen...everyone looking at the television in disbelief says one thing...and only one thing. Oh...man!#$! WTF!

We will sweep KC.

For the record, David Palmer is a character in 24. Dennis Haysbert is his actual name.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) I'd like to see them make "Major League 3" where one of Vaugh's former teammates becomes the new manager of the Atlanta Braves and some of the original actors are brought back as members of the coaching staff, including a washed-up drug-addicted has-been Vaughn as the pitching coach. For some reason, I'd like to see Michael Pena and the guy that played Sucre in "Prison Break" in it as players, maybe having Pena being the new Vaughn-like wild pitcher? Maybe even someone like Nick Cannon as a fast toolsy outfielder. Seth Rogan as a 1st baseman? Kal Penn as a relief pitcher? Charlie Day or Rob Elhenney as other players? Who else would people like to see in "Major League 3"? No to Seth Rogan. I can't stand that guy, he ruins movies. Just make it truly epic and make Robert Downey Jr. the lead, a pitcher in his 40's that refuses to quit, and allow hilarity to ensue. Oh, and let's make Tom Cruise the home plate umpire while we're at it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) Yes, to greater or lesser degrees. Actually we've made quite a bit of progress, but there is a long way to go. I think we've made far less progress promised for decades now. Maybe we we weren't pouring trillions into a desert and investing in REAL alternative energy sources with that money we'd get somewhere faster.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011...ctor-ready-film

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 08:56 AM) And as both NSS and I stated...hybrid ownership correlating with miles driven is exactly what you should expect from the economics. It doesn't mean that hybrid ownership causes additional driving. Actually, they think it does. Studies are showing that people who own hybrids opinions are that because they are "greener" they can drive more, often nullifying any green effect, and they aren't realizing or recognizing it. According to these studies, they aren't driving more because of the economics at all, they're driving more because they tend to take more "pleasure trips" they wouldn't have taken before they had the hybrid. Researchers, according to USA Today, "Found that even though hybrid owners may be able to save gas, they eat up the savings by driving more on pleasure trips. Their commute habits are about the same as non-hybrid drivers, but they logged up to 25 percent more on trips not related to their jobs." Don't jump on me, I'm just the messenger. More: http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-...-Bills-Tickets/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) Yes, oil consumption numbers per capita come from the raw data, it doesn't matter how it is used. I checked about half a dozen sites before I found a graph I liked, all showed the same thing...it's domestic production + imports divided by population, and that has remained roughly constant over the past 30-40 years. Second point...I have a hard time believing that hybrid vehicle drivers would actually drive 3x as much as a non-hybrid vehicle driver just because of the numbers...3x the average american's driving distance would be 30,000-35,000 miles a year, which would mean most Priuses would have 200,000-300,000 miles on them at this point. I think your numbers have to be slightly off there... However, I would fully expect there to be a correlation between increasing driving distance and hybrid vehicle purchases...but not for the causality you give, where the ownership of the hybrid causes increased consumption. I'd expect it is the reverse...if you ask "Which group of the population would benefit most economically from owning a hybrid vehicle", the answer is "People who drive an awful lot while in cities". They'd save the most money by pushing up their MPG. A lot of them would be driving the miles whether or not they had a hybrid, and therefore they extract the maximum amount of savings through that purchase. My number of 3x is far exaggerated...however, I've read studies showing that hybrid owners drive far more. Doing a quick search: http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/hybrid...onsibility.html Together, studies by auto insurance analytics company Quality Planning, collision publication “Mitchell Industry Trends Report” and the Highway Data Loss Institute found that: * Hybrid owners drive 25 percent more miles than owners of gas-powered cars. * Hybrid owners receive almost two-thirds more traffic citations than their all-gas counterparts. * Hybrids are involved in more collisions than non-hybrids.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 08:44 AM) Mostly for defense. Which I'm told by the GOP doesn't count. It counts, and the GOP is stupid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 08:29 AM) Link In other words, no longer "open", but more or less "closed" like Apple. Honestly, this is a good move for them. I'm not a big believer in this "open" crap anyway, not for huge undertakings like a phone operating system. Unfortunately, reality dictates that people need to get paid to live, and open source doesn't pay well. Opening the source code so people can see it is one thing, but having no requirements on it's use is another. Webkit is opensource, created by Apple, it's what Safari and Chrome are based on, although forks of the original code base. For smaller projects, there are some really good open source programs out there, but for bigger programs, think Photoshop, no open source project will touch it, and many try (Gimp, Acorn, etc). I think this is a good change. Android was well on it's way to becoming the ghetto OS for phone makers, tweaks, skins, altercations...the experience was never quite the same from device to device, and that was leading to a lesser experience.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 3, 2011 -> 11:12 AM) No concerns yet, but his 102 ERA+ and 1.40 WHIP last year don't exactly make me feel optimistic about him going forward. I can easily see him lowering that WHIP into the lower 1.3's this season, but I'd rather that the Sox not invest more money in a guy with almost 2,300 innings of on his arm who is struggling to hit 87 on the gun. Didn't he have what was considered a pretty unlucky year when it came to balls in play or something that contributed to those inflated numbers?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 08:33 AM) To switch out of sarcasm mode...there is something to saying that our efforts to improve fuel efficiency have in fact succeeded. To show that, all one needs to do is look at a graph of per capita oil consumption in the U.S. since the 1970's oil busts. U.S. per capita oil consumption has been pretty much flat since the start of the environmental movement. There have been a few wiggles, especially associated with the 2008 price spike, but overall, the growth in oil imports in this country have been driven by 2 factors. 1. Population growth 2. The fact that U.S. oil production peaked in the late 1960's and has been declining ever since. I'm not going to dispute your characterization that the only way things will get better from here is if somehow we were to find politicians who weren't totally bought out by dirty energy...I only wanted to illustrate that it was possible to make an impact if you actually could find the political will. I can't disagree with you here, however, I've seen reports that show that people driving more fuel efficient cars/hybrids tend to drive something like 3x MORE than an average person without a fuel efficient vehicle...sort of nullifying any perceived gains. Yes, our cars and trucks are getting more MPG, and are far more efficient than in years past, yet we are using the same amount of oil or more? That's not adding up. The fact that your chart shows US oil production has declined since the 1960's sort of illustrates that we are even MORE dependent on foreign oil now than ever before, does it not? Also, I'm not certain here, but does that graph only count the people? What I mean is I've read that we are using more oil due to shipping, trucking, factories, etc...does that graph of our oil consumption include all of that, too? I think we'd both like to see the same things here, instead or the typical modern government method of doing things. Make promises about energy dependence, but do nothing but continue to subsidize dirty energy companies while giving a pittance of money for R&D for future energy tech...that's what I see happening...so I'm forced to call their bluff.

These graphs and charts probably don't include money the government pays out to 3rd parties, such as Haliburtin, or contractors making 30,000$ a month to work in Iraq, etc...which has been going on for the last decade. While these aren't government employees because they're all contracted out...it's still the government paying out the $.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 2, 2011 -> 05:13 AM) Kennedy was going to be gone by the end of the decade. A President has to be able to set longer term goals than just his administration, with or without reelection. Setting a goal of being 1000% richer is powerful if then you start planning. This is what I want and how will I get there nakes more sense than where am I going, now what is my goal. The challenge will be when energy companies come forward with ideas that require government assistance, will the President *and* congress help? And shouldn't thisd be more private sector anyways? Making attainable promises and making off the wall ridiculous promises are two different things. It's common in our current political landscape to just say the things your followers want to hear, such as we will get Bin Laden, or there are WMD's in Iraq, or this health bill will lower costs, or we will be 30% less dependent on foreign oil in a mere 14 years. Note, if I was seeing some returns on these promises, maybe I'd say ok and believe a little...but we aren't seeing anything of the sort. It's only ok to make ridiculous sounding promises if you can show minor but yearly gains leading toward that promise. It's simple math in some ways. When you say costs will go down...but we never seen them drop a dime, it's a lie. When you claim we will use less oil, only we've seen consumption skyrocket...again, a lie. While the promises from Obama may sound great (and many others in the modern 2000 and beyond era of politics for that matter), they're also unrealistic in the current landscape of things. Stating that we will cut foreign dependence by 30% before 2025 and achieve having 80% of our energy from non oil sources by 2035 is unrealistic in light of the fact we've seen our energy (oil) dependence skyrocket in the last decade. While it appeals to the believers and the Utopians among us (as in, not myself), it's unattainable in the current political and corporate climate of the US. Ergo, while optimistic, it's an outright f***ing lie. If I saw them cut the wars, take that money we're pouring into the middle east and pour it into alternative energy/fuel R&D...maybe then I'd believe them. But right now, their money isn't where their mouths are...and I'm tired of people allowing politicians to continue to lie, and say whatever they want to say because it sounds great, but do nothing to show progress on said promises. These are more empty promises.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2011 -> 05:18 PM) With as many holes as their are in Texas...unless you're advocating drilling in downtown Houston or inside Big Bend National Park, there's really not much extractable resource left. That state has been developed like no where else in the world. We can drill an undersea pipeline and drink the Saudi's milkshake.

:notworthy :notworthy :headbang :headbang

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 05:14 PM) should we be happy about this game? Yes. After scoring 15 runs and putting in a bunch of bench players and letting their foot off the gas...I'd say yes.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 05:13 PM) Yes please ...and now this.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 05:08 PM) Well, many of their runs likely wouldn't have been scored if Ozzie hadn't put the scrubs in. This.

Preemptive

In years past, I would have worried that scoring 14 today meant scoring 0 or 1 the next few days...with this lineup, I honestly don't see this happening this year.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Predicting a 7-3 loss 6-2 win.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 01:57 PM) Oh I'm sure you do. See? This was like a Vazquez beachball during an important game...and you didn't miss it.