StrangeSox

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 10:14 AM) Absolutely, it also seems easier to keep one power plant running at peak efficiency and with peak environmental controls than thousands of cars. I just see people call them non-polluting in other venues and we forget that electricity needs to be generated somehow. Go nuclear and you're only left with a small amount of radioactive waste which can be reprocessed and stored. QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 10:14 AM) What I see instead of some technology that will charge "fill" in five minutes, is smaller, lighter, power sources that could be swapped out like propane tanks. At least here, more people just trade tanks at our local convienence stores than have our own tanks filled. That's much more realistic than some form of rapid charging.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 08:57 AM) So there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason why oil is this high. Inventories are at a relatively historical high and there's no real distribution shortage. This is pure speculation. Was it a mistake to allow the free trade of oil as a commodity given its absolute need in society? There's a very good reason. Oil is traded in dollars generally, and the dollar is losing value.

Joe Crede > All. They'll need to open a new wing on the HOF just for him. The rest of those bums are unfit to be in the same room as Joe "Perennial Gold Glover and Silver Slugger" Crede

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 03:52 PM) Why would that hurt battery life? If I'm out of AA batteries and a set dies, sometime in the freezer gets a little more juice out of em. Batteries lose capacity in colder temperatures. I don't know the chemistry behind it. http://www.conergy.us/desktopdefault.aspx/.../451_read-3926/

How long does it take to recharge? Also, how would a car like that work for people in apartments/ condos? Run an extension cord out the window?

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 07:06 PM) I mentioned the 3 most important offensive stats. Nothing sneaky about that. YOU forgot to mention he walked 11 more times on the road vs. at home. Nice try, Mr. Sly! OPS > AVG

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 02:21 PM) And you can act like its common knowledge but most people do not realize that states generally vote by historical trends. No one has really brought up some names of states likely to flip, which is what this discussion should be about. Which states will the Democrats win that they lost before? I just dont really see that many states where its likely to flip, thus my belief. /shrugs I could have also said that whatever way Ohio goes the election will go as Ohio has only gone for the wrong candidate once (Nixon over Kennedy) I don't know where you get this. It's generally accepted that states like Illinois, California, and New York will always go blue, while places like Texas will always go red. Then you hear the phrase "battleground states" constantly in the media. The two big ones usually are Ohio and Florida. There are several others as well. I think most people realize this. Just look at this map from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008-US...-Map_vector.svg Here's the page on common "Swing States" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) that's a strange hypothetical, though. Of course if the results remained the same as last election the republicans will win. They won last election, so if the results remained the same, they will win this election. I mean, yeah. Exactly. I think Soxbadger just had a really long-winded way of saying "If the Republicans get the same number of electoral votes as last time, they will win." Well duh.

Not a particularly good episode. The show as a whole is much more focused on story and drama than mystery now.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 6, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) The FL and MI situation is getting a little uglier. A senator from FL is telling Howard Dean that the DNC should either accept the original results, or pay for a do-over. Dean says a do-over is all good, but that the DNC will not pay for it. What kills me here is that the voters in FL and MI, and the rest of the nation indirectly, are now paying for the poor decision making of whomever in FL and MI decided to move their primaries up too far. My question is, who are those people, and if they still have jobs, why? They will need to come to a decision pretty quick. As it stands now, the re-addition of 2 big primaries probably helps Clinton the most, since she is behind. I have a feeling they will end up re-doing both primaries, and splitting the costs somehow. And that changes the math a bit. As I understand it, it was a state-wide decision to move up the primaries, not just the DNC. Many democrats were opposed to it, but were overruled by the republican majority.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) May have to go with Archuleta again, as bad as that is. Please god, no.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 6, 2008 -> 08:32 AM) If only one out of seven votes that Nader got would have otherwise gone to Gore in Florida, we'd have had a different president. If one out of three voters that voted for Nader in New Hampshire voted for Gore, we'd have had a different president. I don't think you can reasonably argue that George Bush represented a better set of policies and positions towards issues that the Green Party would generally care about. Only 1% of D voters voted for Nader. 6% voted for Bush. Case closed. Gore did not EARN the votes he needed. The D's and R's don't get every vote by default.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 6, 2008 -> 01:15 AM) I didn't live in a state where my vote would have made an effect when I voted for Nader in 2000. Indiana was going for Bush regardless of my vote. Had I lived in Michigan, where it was close until three days before the election, I wouldn't have dared. The truth is, another four years of the same party in power along the executive branch means the calcification of the Supreme Court as conservative activist for a generation. That's not something I'm willing to chance happening by protesting whether or not I think my candidate is a nice guy. I think if most people who voted for Nader anticipated the differences a Gore presidency could have offered them over the last eight years, they'd gladly switch their vote retroactively. If you really want a third party to make a change, start at the bottom. Start with local races, state races. Don't start with an election that gives you no shot to do anything other than possibly derail your own interest. However, YAS, given you are generally diametrically opposed to my political point of view, I encourage you to vote for the third party nominee of your choice . Gore lost on his own. He couldn't carry his own state, and more D's voted for Bush in Florida than for Nader.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 03:11 PM) So there is another myth up in smoke... Who's say that it wouldn't have been 65-35 Obama if not for Rush?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) Again this change applies to all women. I think there's a big difference between offering different sexes time to exercise on their own, than there is to compare it to race or orientation. We separate locker rooms by women and men, we don't separate them by color, race, religion, sexuality. What's the common theme between locker rooms and washrooms that isn't true of basketball courts and workout rooms? You drop your pants.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) Does anyone think Rush Limbaugh had anything to do with Clinton winning? Rex posted in another thread that Rep. voters in the Dem. primary favored Obama.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 02:14 PM) I think I heard that the Cell's configuration makes it one of the toughter parks to accumulate doubles and triples. May just be b.s. since I have no source to quote, but I could swear there was some analysis done to back it up. Well, its widely accepted that its easy to hit HR's there. Some of those HR's might be doubles or triples in another park.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 02:27 PM) Regardless of my position on it, how would you enforce that? I'd be against it, by the way. Instead of something you can't outwardly identify, how about race-based? Whites can't use this gym 3 hours a day. Sound fair?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 01:32 PM) You would be allowed to use this gym. 64 of the 70 hours that the gym is being used. You also would be able to use every other gym in the system during all open hours as well. There are other restrictions on the use of other athletic facilities in the Harvard system based on ability as well. Nobody is having anything taken away. And if someone is whining that they have to walk an extra 10 minutes to exercise, that's almost as stupid as this fake outrage is. But women are allowed to use the gym a full 70 of the 70 hours. Why is discrimination based on gender ok here? Would it be ok to have a gym where women couldn't workout for a certain period, or would there be an awful lot of uproar? And you didn't answer Alpha's question. At what point does the discrimination become unacceptable? 10 hours? 35 hours? A separate gym only for women?

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 12:44 PM) Not totally disagreeing with you. But interesting to look at. Which teams have managed to do this, and how did they go about it? Yankees and Red Sox have infinity dollars to buy free agents and sign all of their own free agents- have less need to trade lots of prospects for MLB players. Tigers went through several years as a horrendous team while they built their farm system, brought people up, and now have traded away the remainder of their system to try to win it all immediately. Indians, Rays, DBacks, Rockies all go through several years of being very bad while they bing up a mostly in-house young team. Other people know farm systems better than me. What percentage of teams have managed to be consistently good major league teams all while having a good farm system (excluding fake teams the Yankees and Red Sox)? Before trading the farm for Cabrera, the Tigers were still a top AL contender. You're going to go through cycles, sure, but it doesn't have to be only one or the other.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) Once again, and I am tired of having to remind people of this. You'd deal all the quality veterans you have for young kids, and you could have one of the best systems in baseball. As Kenny has said, he could build a great farm system in 2 weeks if that was the goal. You can build a decent farm system while still having a top-tier ball club with the payroll KW has. Right now it looks like we have neither.

I have lost interest in election 2008 again. Wake me up after the infighting.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) Well, why don't you read the article again before you spew your fake outrage over this. Again, this is one gym, the least used in the university. That is available to women only for 6 out of 70 hours a week. You don't have to be a muslim woman to work out during those hours. You just have to be a woman. So why would a University spend thousands, if not millions of dollars to build a new gym for women to work out by themselves when they could just change the operating hours for a gym that isn't used very often in their system? Why should I not be allowed to use a gym I'm paying for equally because of someone else's religious beliefs?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) I think I just did. We posted at the same time

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) B.S. what do you think of the tactic? For me, that has been what has made Obama more appealing is that he has stayed away from the smear machine. If he does it, I think it far outweighs his strengths. Like the saying is, you play in the mud with pigs you become a pig, and the Clintons are FAR better at it then Obama, and he will lose badly if he "takes the gloves off". I agree 100%.