NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Two other shows that were gone too soon: "Early Edition" and "Boomtown" Good call on Boomtown.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) Well, this poll appears to have been conducted using a different method: face to face sampling in Iraq. They certainly appear to have had no connection to being found over a computer. Which is probably why "Le Moyne college" was involved. Probably gave him manpower and access to the bases that he might not have had if it were just 1 person doing the sampling. Well that does make a big difference. The Zogby polls I have seen did not use face-to-face methods. You are probably right about the partnering, that gave him the manpower he needed. Probably part of some Le Moyne college kids' Masters thesis or something.

Emergency! Scrubs (soon to be cut) Ren and Stimpy (the original Krikfalusi versions) Millenium High Incident *I'll be impressed if anyone here has seen all five shows

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 03:07 PM) Zogby and Gallup are 2 opposite ends of a spectrum in the general elections. In the General, Zogby assumes that the party registration of whatever sample he gets may be biased, and he takes the step of normalizing his results by the party affiliation of the previous election. In other words, if his sample records 33% Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, but the last election was 40-30-30, he'll assume he missed some Republicans and recalculate. Gallup doesn't do that...Gallup assumes that Party ID is a variable...that people can leave and enter parties depending on how they feel at the time. While this is true, it leaves the possibility that Gallup's sample may be biased by something like having a larger portion of Democratic voters either at work when Gallup calls or using only cell phones, which cannot be polled. Which method works? Well, in the last election, Gallup was closer to correct; there was a shift towards the Republicans due to additional votes for Bush among the elderly and among those who are in the top 10% of wage earners. Zogby missed this, because he assumed that party affiliation was holding constant. However, it's also possible that next election, Gallup could easily be the one who is off, because they could miss some bias in their sample due to things like people not being home or choosing to not respond when called (If more Republicans choose not to answer the poll than Democrats, suddenly they have a biased sample.) In this poll, it looks like none of that is any concern at all. This Zogby poll appears to have taken several steps to appear random, they have demographic information which can be cross-checked and compared to army statistics (which I don't have but i'm betting others do), and there's no adjustment based on any standard as far as I can tell. So in this case, the only reason to disbelieve Zogby's method is if he didn't get a representative sample...which as I said above, could be checked by comparing his demographic information to the makeup of the army as a whole. For the record, I was the person samclemens was referring to. I took Squirt to task for the Zogby poll. The reason I find Zogby polls to be nearly meaningless isn't about the numbers at all - it is about the method of harvesting respondants. Not sure if you all know this, but the way Zogby conducts his polls (the ones I am familiar with anyway) is to recruit volunteers over the web, and email them poll questions on various topics. This is entirely different than a random phone-based poll for many reasons. Now, what he does with the raw result set aside, this method alone makes the data worthless IMHO. You already have a highly biased set who are willing to be part of the Zogby "panel", and further, you have built in biases for internet usage and savvy, as well as factors like people who have time to fiddle with that crap in their email. So no matter what he does to massage the results, the raw data is out of whack, so the results are not meaningful. Therefore, I would not rely on this poll for much of anything.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) It's been oversold, oh, since it IPO'd. Overbought, you mean?

I got the pic in my sig fairly recently - its the flying spaghetti monster, and for whatever reason, I just couldn't stop chuckling at the picture. It was put up in the middle of a particilarly heated 'Buster thread regarding religion and other sensitive topics. As for the phrase: "Credo in Crede", its Latin. It means Believe in Crede (if that wasn't obvious). My wife and I had a sign up at the WS Game 2 with that phrase on it. Just a fun play on words.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 12:29 AM) I'm not going to read through all the 7 pages but my opinion on abortion is that it's not the child's fault the parents have some fun one night, don't punish them for the parents mistakes. If it's going to save the mother that's one thing, and about rape, that's another, but if abortion is ever completely banned except for the health of the mother and rape, then there will be a lot more rape cases coming up. I have to ask those of you who are in favor of banning abortion (or pro-life or whatever we are calling it today) a question. If your stance is that the fertilized egg is life immediately, then why the rape exception? That makes no sense to me. If I believed that life started at conception (which I am still open to, I am not dead-set on this topic yet), then to me, the ONLY logical exception that would be acceptable is when the mother's life is on the line. If conception occurs via rape, that life (if it is one at that point) is still a life, regardless of what action created it. The crime itself is horrific, but if life is to be protected no matter what, than rape cannot be an exception in my view. So can you explain that, please? The rape exception just doesn't sit well with me.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 06:40 PM) Oh man. I was hoping JG would lose the patch. It looks even longer and more ridiculous now. :rolly

QUOTE(Beltin'Bill @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 06:47 PM) I am getting a bit tired of hearing this statement. The greatest player in WS history is an overstatement. He is arguably the best hitter in WS history, but there are plenty of others you could make the case for as well. Eddie Collins, Joe Jackson, and Luke Appling (in particular) come to mind. Further, while I think his stats are HOF caliber, he was a DH for a good portion of his career. When he was on the field his defense was below average at best. Let' please stop calling him the best player in WS history just because he was the best hitter we current fans saw in our lifetime. There are plenty of other WS players that contributed on the field and at the plate. Frank had two tools (power and average), not five. Arguable. But whatever - whether he was THE best or one of the best, same thing in this case. I'll stick to my point.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) I sure did. Backed up and ran over his sorry butt again, too. But I stood and cheered him when he took the field at the cell. "Thanks for what you did while you were here". Right on, Steff. That is about how I feel on Frank. Yeah, he is being an a**hole, but I'll be on my feet cheering when I see him in May.

I've avoided all these Frank threads, but since they are now about half of page 1 of PHT, I suppose I should say something. Here are my 2 thoughts... 1. KW, from everything I have seen, has been more than patient with Frank. So has the Sox organization. And all Frank has done is b****. Therefore, I cannot fault KW for his outburst. Not the classiest move, but understandable. 2. When Frank comes back to town, you can bet I'll give him that standing O, no doubt about it. Yeah, he has been a pain in the ass. But he is indeed the greatest player in Sox history, and he deserves my respect as a fan - even if he is being an a**hole. He'd have to do a lot worse to lose that.

Just to throw a somewhat random fact about laser eye surgery out there... If you are in, or are ever considering applying for any federal job (and jobs in some states) that has any type of vision requirement (law enforcement agencies and security/intelligence, for example), be aware that having any sort of surgical modification to your vision will automatically disqualify you from that job. I know, sounds weird, but it is absolutely true. The federal government appears to not yet be confident that such procedures will be effective in the long run. Just in case it matters to anyone.

It was a joke (the dishes comment), and I'll tell you why: the reporter, if you will notice, was a woman. I guarantee, if he said that to a female reporter, it was a joke. No way he says that in any seriousness to a female reporter (or probably to anyone).

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) Not to hijack this thread, but that name--Lance Broadway...he's got to be an actor or something with that kind of name. There is also a Ray Liotta in the Sox minor league system (unless he has been traded).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 08:50 PM) You're right on Vilsack. If Richardson runs, he'd have a very good shot at that nomination. Good experience, been a governor, hispanic heritage, pretty good record as governor, run a western state which could help the Dems appeal to other states in the West, Energy Secretary experience helps him deal with what will probably be one of the most important issues in 08 as gas prices keep going up, etc. Only difference is, thus far he's another one of those guys who has said every time that he's not going to run for the nomination also. I believe him less than Gore when he says that, because the people of his state don't want him to be saying that he's running for President when he should be running that state. Warner also has a very good shot. Depending on what Feingold, Obama, and Richardson do in terms of running, he's at least somewhere on the list of people I'd consider. I've been researching Richardson a bit lately. He is very good at finding a handful of priority issues, and making big strides on them. But issues that aren't in his narrow focus seem to just not come up at all. He is very much a keep-it-simple guy, and NM has been helped because of it. I am a bit puzzled by his lack of attention to environmental issues (outside of water and oil/gas issues, which he has made great strides in), since that is generally a hot topic in NM. But he has been nothing short of fabulous for businesses in NM, he understands the energy community, he saw a huge dip in DUI and violent crimes on his watch (DUI is a huge thing in NM) and he is a fiscal conservative. He even has shown some foreign policy skills, working to negotiate the release of US hostages in multiple situations. Like I said in the Indie thread, I really like Bayh or Richardson for the Dems. And I do think Bayh could swing IN, for the record. Richardson's key swing state draws would be NM and CO, and maybe could help push other close states in the west like OR, WA and even MT, since he is a mountain-west guy. I don't think he will win TX, but I bet he makes it interesting. He may struggle in OH, PA and FL though, being as far away geographically and with such a low profile nationally.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 09:42 PM) I am looking at my interactive map 270 to win.com and as of now I see Warner and Richardson as the best bests. I think Richardson would make a fine president. I brought him up in the Indie thread as a possibility. He has done a lot of positive things for NM, but he has apparently ignored a few big problems in his state as well (such as grazing rights versus wilderness protection). But overall, he seems a good candidate. I just don't know if he can get his profile high enough to get the momentum he would need.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 04:13 AM) But see, the one thing I still point to is that if the Republicans keep both houses, but even have only a 1 seat majority in both houses...they still will manage to hold onto the gavels in every single committee. That means that the Republicans will still be able to prevent the Democrats from having any sort of investigation, swearing in witnesses, or issuing subpoenas, just as they have done the last 4 years. I don't mind a 1-2 seat Democratic Majority in 1 house with the Republicans holding the majority in the other house. Wouldn't mind that outcome at all. If I had to give up the White House in 2008 to get 1 house of Congress in 2006 so that the Democrats could get subpoena power, I'd do it. Just so that there is finally some sort of check on Mr. Bush's power, and tens of billions more dollars can't simply disappear like they have in Iraq. I think I must be misunderstanding something. How would a party have "the gavel" in all the committees by having just a 1 seat majority? I didn't think it worked that way. Some committees will have Dem chairs and/or Dem majorities in that scenario. Am I misunderstanding your meaning of "the gavel"?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 03:01 AM) I believe the Filibuster was created entirely so that people like Minors could have a place to chime in alongside people like me, where both of us can make arses of ourselves without being banned. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 06:54 PM) If you really want to get the letter of our corporate law then. My actions stopped a group of over 100 individuals from stealing company resources. My motives have nothing to do with them not doing their job. The pleasure in stopping the cubby fans from purchasing tickets when they should be working was secondary to my primary job of protecting our bandwidth. Maybe we should submit a bill to each of their departments for stolen bandwidth. If you did the same for other events or mass uses of bandwidth, including Sox ticket time? Sounds good then.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 06:07 PM) I will have to let the rest of the chicago corporate security investigation community know at the next Infraguard/Facist meeting that we are all at risk. That mainly deals with corporate interception of private email. Like google mail and things of that nature. There are certain protections that I must abide by when I preform forensic investigations. I can retrieve artifacts offline from the machine itself, I however cannot connect the machine online and retrieve their email. We protect ourselves by blocking all personal mail. Note to Mods/Admin: God I didnt think that this thread was going to take this ethics turn. This probably needs to moved to Buster. Next time I wont share with the class. Then I can have rest weigh in on how I am a corporate facist You're still missing the point. Your actions were NOT a corporate investigation. They were your own petty motives. That is why its wrong.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 05:47 PM) A bathroom is a place of expected privacy. Where Title III comes into place with electronic survelliance is when you have an "expectation" of privacy. Our acceptable use policies are specific. Our employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy with their email or computer use. We also do not allow cameras, USB sticks, or other times that could be used to remove data or intellectual property. Again these are f***ing cub fans we are talking about. Jesus christ. Maybe we can ban the cubs suck shirts because they might offend their sense of being a cub fan. Everyone relax. Privacy is not black and white - it has gradients. Read here: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/arti...01dltr0026.html A few highlights. For one, see in the overview, that law favors legitimate, employer-monitoring practices. Not individual whims. See also that 8 states, IL included, extend privacy laws normally reserved for public sector employees to private employees as well. There is also the federal ECP Act, which may also protect employees from willful or unnecessary interception of data. Point is, you are taking a risk, a risk your company will shoulder. Don't make it seem like your arbitrary use of power is "part of your job".

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 05:27 PM) Relax Francis.. he didn't read personal emails. Looked to me like he said he did. Even reiterated it, saying he was only half joking.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 05:25 PM) An ex employee just tried to sue us for wrongful termination because he was using the company server to conduct non-work business during non-business hours.. The case got tossed. The company ownes any and everything you do at your work station no matter what time of day it is. This is legally different than an independent employee, acting outside company interests, reads people's private emails. Just so that we are clear. But the real risk in these actions is that companies are all highly legal-risk averse. And if an employee does something that puts them at risk of even the possibility of a lawsuit, they are likely to respond swiftly and harshly.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 05:24 PM) boy that's a kick in the pills... merry xmas to me. now i get to drive 45 minutes down to us cellular to use my gift card to buy tickets. BROOKS!!!!! Well wait... is it an actual card, or a certificate that looks like a ticket? Mine are things that look like tickets. If you have a card, with some serial or card number on it, that might be different. Call the ticket office and ask.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) Food for thought.. bosses, the IT department, the mods at your favorite message board can and are reading your words.. No doubt. I am sure the Mods are cringing reading this thread right now.