almagest

Yeah, I'm sure this 10 year old kid cares about first amendment rights. I'm sure he even knows what they are. I love when parents use their children as outlets for wacko ideas.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 22, 2008 -> 12:01 PM) I think you over estimate the capabilities of the average user. It might be Unix under the hood, but when it comes down to it these are users under the controls, not sysadmins. They are not thinking security and safety when they browse the internet. True, but I don't see how an antivirus program is going to address this problem, either. It's just another line of defense that has questionable validity, in my mind.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 22, 2008 -> 01:36 AM) Not to pick on you, but how exactly does having a Mac change the need for anti-virus. And better yet, how does the addition of a windows based hosts on your network raise or change the threat level for your Mac system. Apple being on an Intel architecture and becoming more popular makes it a more appealing target. The view, and it not just you, that the mac is not a target for malware is wide spread. Making it a very attractive target. Linux has malware, hell just take a road down malware and virus history and you see the first worms on the Internet were based on exploits in sendmail on Unix systems. If its plugged into the internet or a network and especially if you have a browser or other applications on it you are at risk. My point in mentioning Windows hosts wasn't that they raise the malware threat level for a Mac, it's that a non-Windows system can often relay Windows malware to machines, especially on a LAN where security is generally more lax. I also don't disagree that Macs *are* targeted for attack a lot more now than a couple years ago, due to the rising popularity of the OS. That being said, there's still a minuscule amount of malware for non-Windows machines. I just don't see the need for an unwieldy, slow, sometimes invasive antivirus system on a *nix machine, when intelligent usage, a properly configured firewall, Firefox browser extensions (primarily Noscript), and userspace management tools such as jailcell and SELinux can stop or limit threats before they're even on your system. Granted most users won't know about the last thing I mentioned, but the first three are as easy to find and configure as any antivirus software.

I don't really think you need an antivirus program for your Mac, since it's Unix-based. No real virus problems to worry about there -- unless you have Windows machines on your network, in which case I'd just recommend running antivirus programs on those. Some things I would recommend: Open Office 3.0 for Mac -- unless you absolutely require MS Office for some reason, there's no justification for spending the money on it. Open Office is more than good enough. Note that it's currently in release candidate phase, not full release. This really doesn't mean much, though, since by RC time most applications are without any major bugs. Leopard's built-in firewall Otherwise, just use this. Try them all out; see what you like and/or need. I suggested the native Open Office port instead of Neo Office, since Neo requires X11, and Open is native. Other recommendations: - Camino - Adium - Quicksilver - The Unarchiver - Transmission - VLC - Seashore

Wikipedia on Mitochondrial Diseases Any sort of disease that affects the "generators" of your cells = bad. Baldelli probably doesn't have much baseball left in him, unfortunately.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 08:38 AM) In all seriousness what are his options? He can't bring in Jenks in the 7th, and Thornton is the only other psuedo-dependable guy out there. I have said it before, and I will say it again. If none of these guys step up, we aren't winning anything anyway. He HAS to try to find SOMEONE for the 6th and 7th innings. If no one emerges, this team is either going to lose out to the Twins or get beat in the first round anyway. You're right, but some people don't care about that. They need a scapegoat, and Ozzie's convenient.

Been playing Final Fantasy IV and Trauma Center on DS a lot. Also trying to download the Warhammer Online open beta, but the queue is just insane on FilePlanet, and it's the only place I've seen to get it. Plus the file is like 9 gigs.

My girlfriend loves to bowl, and I used to bowl in a league in grammar school, but this Saturday is her father's birthday party, so no go that day. Is it possible to join late?

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 10:15 PM) Because it's a question that has no exact answer. If you think that OC was the only player we could have gotten for Garland, and that there were no other players available to get for our 3 minor league package, then there's no point in even discussing the situation. And if you think there were obvious better options for each player than what we got, yet are continually unable to mention even one possibility, or provide any references that would indicate this was the case, then I agree -- there's no point in even discussing the situation.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:34 PM) They are a .500 team at home. The Twins are sub-.500 on the road. Thus, the Orioles should be the favorite to win. They also have the 6th best offense in the AL in terms of runs scored. "Pretty good" is also a general statement; the Orioles are a mediocre team talent wise, the Indians have a good team and pitching staff and an offense that has been better, and the Rays have a damn good team and pitching staff though how they keep winning games I do not know. I'll bluntly say that I doubt the Twins will sweep the Orioles and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they lose the series. Agreed. The Orioles also play in probably the toughest overall division in baseball. The Red Sox and Rays are probably the two best AL teams (I really don't think the Angels are that good; they benefit greatly from a suck ass division), the Blue Jays are actually a very good team (as we and the Twins found out this year), and the Yankees are in a down year but still throw a bunch of all-stars and HoF-caliber players at you each night.

Yeah, Brian needs to be in CF every day (possibly Wise against RHP sometimes), with Griffey playing LF. Owens needs to be a pinch runner. With expanded bullpens, Linebrink back, and MacDougal pitching pretty well, there's no need to put Wasserman in there, especially with his struggles at the MLB level this year. Let's take 2 of 3 from Detroit, and go from there.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:43 PM) This question sucks so much as it is always asked and follows this route: fathom proposes a trade Response is: A. "How do you know he could've done that? What's your source?" or "Well that's all hindsight 20/20." Uh, maybe because it's a valid criticism, and he has yet to respond to it?

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:49 PM) What is your point? That I found a match? No, my point was that you specifically mentioned a case that was already discussed somewhere else, by someone from this website, who posted a stat showing that a player having an expected BABIP over 30% higher than his actual BABIP for a season is very rare. We're just unlucky and have two of them.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:47 PM) Well since you have the all the answers, why don't you tell us? The Giants were cornered for a third baseman yet all they offered us was Noah Lowry for Crede. Why not Jonathan Sanchez? It doesn't matter what Garland is doing as we should only be concerned about the package we receive on our end. I'll turn the tables the other way. Do you think Boston is kicking themselves for giving up Hanley Ramirez? Maybe because Crede just came off a major back surgery, and was hitting like .180 in Spring Training? Also maybe they knew patients receiving this surgery have a high chance of relapse a few years down the road? Maybe the Giants wanted to hang onto Sanchez more than Lowry, possibly because he's a year younger, has better stuff, and had better numbers in the minors? I doubt the Red Sox are kicking themselves over giving up Ramirez, given how good Beckett has been. But you can't tell me they wouldn't want to have him there, either, especially with how god awful Lugo has been, and how tough it's been to fill the SS position overall since Cabrera left. Also Hanley Ramirez struggled a little in his last MiLB season with the Red Sox, and at the time I remember his prospect status slipping a bit.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:39 PM) Those prospects could've netted a better return. Being slightly better than dog s*** (Erstad) is nothing to puff your chest at let alone the price we paid to get him. Konerko: .244/.354/.416 .260 BABIP 461 PA's Swisher: .225/.339/.427 .252 BABIP 553 PA's I think that's pretty similar I knew you'd go there. Check this out -- specifically, 3E8s posts. Here's the first one in case you can't see it:

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:35 PM) Unless there's someone on this site that is in the front office, no one knows the answer to this. However, you'd have to be nuts to think that Sweeney/Gio/DLS wasn't an attractive package to teams. You can't assume something with absolutely no evidence to support it, and expect to ever be correct, much less have anyone agree with you. What if teams knew we had a thin minor-league system, just missed out on Torii Hunter, and that we needed an outfielder? They'd be asking for the moon, and rightfully so. Also, back to OC, Garland's having a pretty mediocre season in a pitcher's ballpark with a good defense behind him. OC may be a jerk, but where would we be at SS with Crede hurt, Fields underperforming, and Uribe continually showing his inability to be an everyday player?

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) Swisher is hitting .225ish with a .340 OBP. Basically this year he is Brian Anderson with a higher OBP and worse defense in the OF. First, it's not fair to compare someone who's played all season with someone who's barely played at all. Second, as I briefly mentioned before, Swisher has a BABIP in the .240 range, with a line drive rate around 20%. Average BABIP hovers close to .300, and average line drive rate is around 18%. It's obvious he's having a bad season, and criticism is definitely warranted, but some of the comments made here are just silly.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:22 PM) It's not just how Swisher had been in relation to the guys he was traded for. It's the possible other packages out there we could have received instead of Swisher. Same with the Garland trade. Ok, so who? Who could we have traded for? Who was available? Who did Kenny not get that he could have?

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:18 PM) That pitch wasn't even close by Ryan. Swisher had seen a few offspeed pitches from him in that AB. Of course, the White Sox are the only team who seem surprised not to get a fastball on every full count. No, he didn't. All fastballs 84-88. A changeup in a 3-2 count with the tying run at the plate and less than two outs in the bottom of the ninth is not an expected pitch by any player, on any team. It was a bad AB by Swisher, true, but blaming him for swinging at a change is kind of silly.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:12 PM) Oh so the Sox were trading their three top prospect for roughly league average offensive and below average defense. I never buy the BABIP argument as an excuse for a guy having a bad season because his strikeout total is so high. If two guys have the same line and same BABIP, you can't tell me they've been equally as "unlucky" at the plate. Swisher is completely lost up there. What have those prospects done? And what was the production from CF/LF/1B like last year? Even in a down year, Swisher is an upgrade over last year. Show me someone with roughly as many PAs as Swish with a similar BABIP, AVG, OBP, and SLG. Heck -- even someone with a similar BABIP and one of the three other stats.

QUOTE (SoxFanForever @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:10 PM) For a guy with a supposed good eye and plate discipline you would think he would be able to avoid swinging at ball 4 about a foot and a half out of the zone, yes? I don't think we are being too demanding. You mean the changeup diving out of the zone after nothing but fastballs, with an ump continually calling low pitches strikes? Also hitters that see lots of pitches and take lots of walks usually strike out a fair amount, too. Not excusing Swisher for striking out, but the hyperbole and overreactions here are disgusting sometimes. And to the people harping about BJ Ryan "sucking": 3.06 ERA this year, 3.26 lifetime. ERA+ 140 this year, 137 lifetime. 28 saves this year. 27 BB/53 K this year, 246 BB / 607 K lifetime. WHIP 1.34 this year, 1.264 lifetime. What about those numbers over 10 seasons indicates "suck" to you? Because he looks easy to hit on TV? Okay, armchair QBs. Whatever you say.

God these game threads are awful. Just awful. It's funny because Soxtalk members post goofy gamethreads from other teams, poke fun at them, then promptly turn around and do the exact same things. Also Nick Swisher is so terrible that he's still managed to put up roughly league-average numbers while enduring perhaps the worst season in his career. He's also got an absurdly low BABIP -- you know, the stat he has no control over and basically amounts to luck. Anyways, tough loss, especially since Gavin pitched so well. The bullpen really let us down. Let's get back to winning against the Tigers.

That's honestly one of the most obvious missed calls I've ever seen. You could see Swisher's mitt recoil, and see the ball snow cone well before the runner's foot hit the bag. It was obvious the ump saw it, too, since you could see him standing RIGHT THERE in the replay. Just awful.

QUOTE (Sonik22 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 07:31 PM) So now i basically f***ed everything up. I hooked up with a girl last night, and i just told her about it. I guess that was pretty wrong to do, but if she didnt really have the feelings i had for her why should she feel so upset about it? But she's just told me that everything is over between us. Wow, just f***. You didn't f*** anything up. Like someone said, you didn't really have a relationship to f*** up in the first place. And I don't see how a friend can get mad for you living your life, especially when she's already told you she's going to move on with hers. You probably shouldn't have said anything about hooking up with anyone, since you probably wouldn't want to hear what she's done -- unless she's already told you about something she did. But yeah, you didn't really do anything wrong. Either she really has feelings for you and this is just a knee jerk angry reaction, in which case she'll cool down and talk to you sometime soon, or perhaps this was just a convoluted way for her to justify her wanting to sleep with someone else. Either way, don't let her bully or control you. Let her make the next contact, and if she brings anything about this up to you, make sure you tell her she's being completely unfair, and that you can't be expected to wait around for her while she's dating other people. Oh, and study hard.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Sep 10, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) so... pauly in a brace. guess he wont be stealing any more bases this season... I wonder if wearing a brace will make him even slower. I also wonder if that's even possible, or would violate the laws of physics.