StrangeSox

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jul 9, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) If the BoSOx want to lean over the plate, I would encourage our pitchers to drill them in the head. It appears that's what Jose was thinking on that first pitch to Ortiz.

Even more awesome.

Awesome.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) Yes sir. I have it installed in my boat my 6 component speakers, and 2 bazooka tubes pumping decent bass. Im an audiophile. I know some people who would want you hanged for calling a system with bazooka tubes "audiophile"

QUOTE(bmags @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 10:31 PM) so after KG's glowing recommendation, i rented date movie...and boy, that thing was terrible. I don't know what he was thinking. I didn't need any more warning than about 15 seconds of the trailer to tell me that movie was a big pile of ****.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) Well, then this whole mess is your mom's fault! Yeah, I think I'll end up enjoying grilling on the $1700 Weber she one a little more Still, I can see how people really do enjoy Sirius. I think my taste is just a bit too eclectic and slightly "off" to truely enjoy it. And if I bought a new car with it pre-installed, I could see how I might be swayed "since its already there."

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) Its a question of bandwidth... that makes sense Definitely, but my mom didn't win a free iPod to give me! I didn't even have the antenna hooked up in my car for 3 years. I just hooked it back up this spring so I could listen to Sox games.

Well, to be honest, the sports, news, and talk don't interest me too much so I don't really miss them. I wonder why they don't broadcast them online? I've jumped around channels, and I'll occasionally wander on down to UG. I guess I was a little harsh on Sirius, but I am disappointed in the repeats. Its not enough to make me stop listening for free, but it hasn't convinced me to start paying $10 a month once this free period runs out.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 01:04 PM) When did Kitt become a right side driver? when hasselhoff sexified it.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) In those rock channels, a lot of music fits into several groups, especially a song like that. And the satellite appeal is more than just the music. Now, online, you are limited to music, so...I could see how you aren't getting the full effect. Another thing to note...no commercials, means more music, which means more likely a repeat will be heard. What is there available on one of the radio units that isn't available online? More channels? No commericials is great. Its the best thing about it. Like other have said about the Score, I tried listening for a while one day. When they came back from commericial to tell me they were going to another commercial, I switched it off. I'll never listen to it again aside from game broadcasts. I guess I was just sort of let down. I hadn't listen to FM radio in years because it was so crappy. The same stations playing the same crap songs over and over again. Sirius is indeed better than that, but I guess I was hoping for even greater variety. I do enjoy listening, but I just can't see spending $120/year on it.

Yes, I exaggerated a little, but I do hear it about every other day. I mainly listen to buzzsaw or classic vinyl from 8am until 430pm. There's just so much music that they could be playing. Just like regular radio, they'll get into cycles where they'll play the same couple of songs by an artist and slowly phase over to a new set. It doesn't have to neccesarily be "deeper" cuts. How many hit songs did the Beatles have? Dylan? Clapton? Zepplin? Yet I hear the same 5 or 6 all the time.

My mom won a"tailgate" prize package from Icehouse that included a Sirius radio and a free 1-year subscription. I've been listening to it online at work this summer. After listening to it, I'm not interested in paying $10 a month. Yes, regular radio blows ass, and this is a lot better, but its still so god damned repetitive. I listen to "classic vinyl 14" a lot. They play music from about a 20 year period, yet I'll hear the same songs by the same artists every day. Yeah, I like the Beatles--play more than 5 songs by them. I was hoping it would be better than that. With the HUGE selection of music from that era, there's no reason to hear the same song twice in a MONTH if they really want to mix up the variety. Instead, I've just heard "Smoke on the Water" for about the 20th work day in a row. Lame.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Maintenance is a non-issue on a new car going forward. Again, most comparisons put the timeline to save on a full hybrid at 5 to 7 years IF gas prices stay the same (which they won't). And that is at CURRENT PRICES for hybrids, which also won't stay the same. AND it ignores the tax rebates. In 2 years, many full hybrids (not the Lexus, probably) will have their savings threshold at 3 to 4 years, less if tax rebates are better in your state. All the numbers are moving that direction. And at 3-4 years, you are still under warranty. In 4 years, at 80 miles/day and ZERO other driving (vacations, trips, etc), you'd be right at the 80k mile end of the warranty on those cars. So, right when you start saving money, you've got a car with 80k miles which is no longer under warranty and has some pretty expensive components that jim-bob down the street can't replace. A light hybrid, with its minimal cost difference, may indeed help. A decade from now, so might a full hybrid. Really I'm arguing against the idea that they're going to save you money anytime soon. Environmental factors are a non-issue as we are discussing gas prices and economic value. According to one article I posted above, rebates aren't helping that much as you can't take the full value. I think the future lies in smaller, lighter vehicles (you're never going to get a Cadillac Escalade to get decent MPG unless you build the entire thing out of carbon fiber), alternate fuel sources, and improved engine technology.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) Performance isn't up to par on true hybrids? I think you have been misled. Go look up the numbers on the Accord hybrid, versus its predecessor. Its quicker, substantially. Lexus hybrid SUV? Same. Performance is actually better for most hybrids, not worse. They did that intentionally, in part because they figured people would THINK the hybrids would be slower, and they wanted to counter the negative view. It was a marketing decision, leading to engineering improvements. The accord hybrid uses a new, more powerful GAS motor; not exactly a fair comparison to say the hybrids perform better. And, on the Accord, you're looking at a 10k difference in price. Over two decades to make that up. The Lexus SUV performs about equally with its gasoline counterpart. Here, there's a $6k price difference and you're looking at over a decade to make up the difference. And this STILL doesn't address substiantially more expensive maintainance costs, especially if you're keeping the car 7+ years to make it worthwhile. http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/23/Autos/hybr...tives/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/14/Autos/tips...rries/index.htm http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Saving...car/P148868.asp

I think DJ's "You don't want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!" after Rowand slammed into the wall making a great play last year was the best.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) You lumped two technologies together, so your math isn't correct. The 10-15% is the light hybrid, with a differential cost of only about $500 in retail price. At 80 miles RT per work day, 20 work days a month, that is 1600 miles. If the hybrid gets 23 MPG, versus a previous 20 (for example), that is a ten gallon difference, give or take. At $3.00 a gallon (its more than that here), that is $30 a month. You make up the cost differential in a little over a year. And I used more conservative use numbers than you did. The full hybrid is of course much more pricey - a few thousand dollars more than the normal car. I don't have the differential numbers there, but the crossover threshold on those is still quite a few years - more than 5, I think. But as stated, that won't stay that way. Technology is not stagnant. Gas will go up, hybrids will go down. There will be some people, aparrently you included, who simply will not be willing to accept new technologies until they are more proven. Fair enough. But I think you are missing out on an opportunity, potentially (if a hybrid car is even available in what you are looking for). Similarly, there are people who jumped on the very first hybrids at huge expense, because they had other reasons for it. Your choice. If you look at the trends, its pretty obvious that hybrids will continue to gain market share and more models will come equiped with it. I based my math on this forbes.com article, http://www.forbes.com/2002/06/03/0603flint.html, and several other reports indicating that people aren't seem nearly as good of mileage as the automakers are claiming for hybrids, especially if they are putting on a bunch of highway miles. Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference. Again, there's much more to make up than the initial purchase price differences. Hybrids are going to be much more expensive to maintain and more prone to failure; there's no way around this. Anytime you make a system a lot more complex than it was, failures WILL increase, and will usually be expensive. Control circuits, sensors, starters electric motors, charging systems, batteries, etc. can all fail and need to be replaced. Yes, the costs will declince, but I still do not see it as economically advantageous for quite a while. Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference. Also, the performance isn't up to par on "true" hybrids. That may not be important to an average Civic driver, but a hybrid truck or SUV doesn't have near the towing capabilities as a similar gas or deisel model. I'm more than willing to accept new technologies when they show proven benefits. Environmental effects aside, a hybrid isn't going to help my pocket book any time soon, especially since an overwhelming majority of my miles are highway, where the gas engine is used. If I really want to save on gas, I'll buy a smaller, lighter car or a motorcycle, not a hybrid.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) For you, barely driving and with a not-bad car anyway? None. Except maybe the environmental angle. For someone who commutes 50-100 miles RT every day, and has a 15-MPG gas-guzzler? Maybe. In a year or two? Heck yeah, in that case. Remember too, for many consumers, it doesn't need to be cheaper than regular gas engines. If it is similar, or even just a bit more, then that will cause a big tilt on the environmental and global/war angles. Plus the techie factor. Otherwise, no one would be buying them now - and yet, they are, in numbers that double every year. I just don't see a 10-15% increase in MPG (to a whopping 17MPG in your example) as being able to offset the additional costs, both upfront and in the long run. Even having to go 100 miles RT a day, you'd only save ~.8 gallons of gas, or $2.50 a day with gas at $3.20 per gallon (that doesn't take into account that MPG increases are typically much less for highway driving, which, if you're going 100 RT is probably going to be the majority of it). That adds up to less than $600 a year in savings on gas. Just the initial difference in price alone would take several years and and probably 100k miles to make up, and then you're into higher maintainance costs. Leasing might provide some savings because you avoid maintainance costs. But then again, you've got limited mileage on a lease so your gas savings aren't going to be nearly as much. When I look for a car next year, I'll certainly consider a deisel, but I won't give a hybrid a second thought.

That's awesome. The watch is kinda ugly, though.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 08:11 AM) Those costs will go down as well. Just like with any other technology, as it matures. And I am not sure what you mean by "excessively expensive", but from what I have read, things have gone pretty well so far for those hybrids on the market. Of course, the real test will be in the next couple years, when the first gens all get a little older. But aside from a few recalls (which are free of charge) on some of the very early models, the articles I've read here and there (Motor Trend, regular newspapers) seem to indicate that hybrids have had a decent track record. I'm referring specifically to the battery packs that are about 7k, a piece that will eventually need to be replaced. That, or throw away the car and get a new one. From a forbes article: "A 30% fuel improvement from a hybrid truck, which at one time Chrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ) talked about, would bring the big trucks up to 20 to 21 miles per gallon. On a large pickup or SUV, that means savings of $300 to $400 per year (based on driving 12,000 miles per year) on a system that might cost $3,000 to $5,000 to install. But GM says even this really doesn't happen, not if the hybrid version is made to perform as well as the conventional vehicle in things like towing capacity."

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) Hybrids will be an answer, at some point soon. The price differential for manufacturing over a regular engine is going down (as with all new technologies), and the price of gas is going up. By some calculations (depending on what cars you compare, etc.), some changeovers are already down to 3 years for net savings. For others, its still 6 or 8. Give it a year or two, and it will be a viable option by all accounts. I don't think those figures factor in excessivly expensive future maintainance costs, just initial manufacturing.

I just paid 3.19 for gas today up in Morton Grove, same prices down in Downers Grove. I take the train to work usually, but its somewhat of a pain because I have to go into Union Station on the BSNF line and then take the Mil-N line out to Morton Grove. Luckily, the train station is less than a mile from my work, but I can see how it isn't an option for most people. And Hybrids aren't the answer to save money for yourself. Short-term you're looking at several thousand dollars more than a normal car to get one, and long term you've got $7k battery packs, electric motors, starters, etc. to replace. One thing that is really helping is the new technology that many companies are coming out with that shuts down half the engine while cruising at highway speeds.

Won't the casinos being closed hurt tax revenues even more?

China has to be pissed too. They warned NK not to launch those missles.

It seems to me there's way too much of modern comedy, aka "dumb humor" like Dodgeball, Anchorman, etc. on the list. Those movies are enjoyable, sure, but best comedies of all time? I think not.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 08:22 PM) who'd back up AJ? just asking. I know there's not a good replacement right now, I'm just b****ing because I hate widger. He calls an absolutely terrible game. What's the ERA and team record with him behind the plate this year?