Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 12:58 PM) Well it was a polemic, not a detailed and nuanced policy proposal. So it's ok to just say whatever you want as the leader of the US? Great. GRAND! WONDERFUL! Maybe all of our politicians need to stick a sock in it and think about what they're going to say before they say it, especially in this age of instant media where everyone has a camera/recorder on them and active at all times. They all talk too much, and all of them need to shut the f*** up from time to time. And detailed/nuanced policy proposals don't mean anything either. Because people let them say whatever they want, whenever they want, and hold them to no standards whatsoever. Obama, Romney, or can say/promise/propose whatever they want with ZERO intention of ever even trying to deliver. And what happens? Nothing. Nobody cares. The same people will just vote for them next chance they get. They're word is held in absolutely no regard...because the people are sheep, and the politicians know it. There are too few actual independents out there. Far too few to matter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 11:53 AM) Good thing he never told anyone that, that's just the silly quote-mined version. He was very explicitly referring to infrastructure in the dozens of sentences surrounding "you didn't build that," not their individual businesses. His speech was no different than the one Elizabeth Warren made last winter. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office...oanoke-virginia You're free to disagree with the philosophical point behind the message, but anything that pretends he was 'attacking' business owners is just silly. He has a valid point, but he pushed it too far. That was the problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) Go read some breitbart article comments on any article relating to Al Gore or the internet. Many of those people still whole-heartedly believe that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. Sorry for unfairly associating you with those circles. Al Gore made fun of it at least once on Futurama. I would not waste my time or energy on such a source. That said, a lot of that comes down to people that really don't know much about the Internet, and are just repeating what they've heard elsewhere. That would be like me commenting on the invention of fuel injection...an industry I know little about. If I heard a trusted mechanic mention something about it, I might be convinced knowing that's his/her industry and incorrectly repeat it. While ignorant...it's not purposeful. If you show that Al Gore clip to people (just that few seconds), they'd have good reason to believe he said that. This is why politicians on both sides need to stop taking things out of context...it leads to nothing good but a dumber public.

And while we're on the subject of the Internet...I recommend this book to anyone/everyone: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-U...ds+stay+up+late

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) I beg to differ. Ok, you get credit for that bit of awesome.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:37 AM) You know what, I'm not going to argue with someone who still clings to the "Al Gore invented the internet!" dumbassery. If you want to talk about the government's role in the development of the internet, I'm fine with that. Nobody that knows anything about the Internet (DARPA/ARPA, etc.), would actually say this as, "He said it, and he meant it!". In the interview in which he says it, he merely used the wrong words, the point was then taken and stretched out of context. The issue is, the GOP did not "invent" him saying those words...he said them. It simply wasn't in the context in which he meant. Anyone that works on the Internet (such as I do), understands that this is a out of context joke. Even Al Gore knows it's become something of a joke.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) But it wasn't just ARPA that the government created. It was central in the development and privatization of the internet into the mid-90's. It's not worse in the example of physical businesses. The whole point (yes, ss2k5, there is one!) is that there's a symbiotic relationship and abandoning that relationship because you fail to recognize that nobody is a completely self-made person and everyone relies on society in some way will only hurt the economy and individuals in the long run. I do NOT disagree with you on this. There is no self made man/woman/child. That we agree on. IMO government IS necessary...it's reach, however, is where we seem to disagree.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:35 AM) Jenks said that the government had nothing to do with 99% of it, which is plainly wrong. And academia is mostly government or government-funded anyway. I think it's pretty clear that the concept of packet switching was created via government funding...but that was merely scratching the surface of the internet. You can even give CERN/UIUC credit (part government/part academia) for creating the initial http1 spec Web/Web Browser. But from there, private industry drove most of the innovation you see today. Are you still using Mosiac? No. You're using a modern browser created by PRIVATE industry, be it Safari, Chrome, IE, etc. Flash, private. ActiveX, private. H264, private. Nobody is refuting the initial concept of packet switching was driven by government funding...it's the backbone of TCP/IP. If we had left it up to the government, and private industry did nothing to push innovation...you'd probably still be in the late 90's web...which was garbage in comparison.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:35 AM) DARPANET is not the internet as we know it or as people knew it in 1999, and he didn't claim to have invented the internet. He claimed to have taken the initiative in creating The Internet, which his policy and legislative record (and pioneers of the field) supports. Actually, yes it is. DARPANET became ARPANET became INTERNET. They aren't new networks...they're the same packet switching concept renamed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) Michael Hiltzik: Who Invented The Internet? There's a bunch more where that came from if you want me to dig them up. There was a deluge after that terrible WSJ editorial referenced in the article. I'm not arguing the government created the initial concept...nor is anyone else. The post you initially replied too said the government created it, it was handed off to academia, and then the private industry...and that's exactly what happened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) Actually, no, he didn't, and the pioneers of the field think that attack was ridiculous. Al Gore was promoting the value of the internet before anyone else in Congress and was crucial in securing funding for the expansion and commercialization. He correctly took credit for that foresight, but he didn't claim to have invented the internet. Watch the f***ing video. He says it right there. Was it what he actually meant? No. But he DID, in fact, say it that way. So while it was taken out of context, it WAS something he said. He says he took the initiave in creating the internet...and he had nothing to do with the initial "creation" of DARPANET...NONE...ZERO.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) Where and how? The WWW and web browsers were developed at CERN and UIUC, both government entities. The world wide web is not the Internet. And I know where it was invented. You've cherry picked one thing from a huge sentence you had written now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) This is a false history of the development of the internet. I hope you're not relying on that really inaccurate, widely refuted (including by the people he cited) WSJ editorial from a month or so ago. The government's development of the initial concepts stretches throughout the entire history of the internet up through the commercialization in the early 90's. The government has heavy involvement in why the internet is what it is instead of a a bunch of little Compuserve-esque domains and why there's a "World Wide Web." You have no idea what you're talking about.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) Al Gore never claimed he invented the internet, that's something conservatives invented and the media uncritically repeated. Actually, yes, he did.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) The problem with his statement was that he ignored 99% of what creates a business and praised the 1% society provides (teachers/roads/etc) all while ignoring that the business owner still pays for that 1%, so it's not like some free service he/she got. The internet is a good example. The government created the "internet" as part of the military, then academia took it over and then capitalism took over. The government has little involvement in 99% of why the internet is what it is. The government also tried to give AT&T the internet, flat out, full ownership if they took over the project. Thankfully AT&T refused on the premise that nobody would ever need such a thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) Private companies barely do basic research these days without heavy NIH funding, and it's still mostly done in university labs with heavy NIH funding. Let's not jump the shark and pretend that the government doesn't play a vital role in scientific research and innovation that lays the groundwork for private research and innovation. While pharma companies do take on a lot of risk and expenses bringing a drug to market, it isn't comparable to the decades-if-ever profitable timelines for basic research. My point isn't that pharma companies don't do anything or are only a minor part, just that we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are without government-funded basic research. Which is conveniently impossible to quantify, or even prove. You're entire post is basically the same "you didn't build that" argument Obama erroneously leaned on. It's a f***ing terrible argument...colorful metaphor included to add meaning. Basic research is done by FAR more than just government funded institutions, always has been, always will be. Again, that's not to say the government doesn't contribute...I've already made it pretty clear they do.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) i gotta say, regardless of whether it's a good program, calling it Athlean-X and constantly comparing yourself to P90X makes you seem like a ripoff that's screaming "no I'M better I swear!" like a 5 year old. I mean, If you go to the Athlean-Xtreme page, it's literally identical to the Insanity: The Asylum color scheme and layout. That said, it's entirely possible it's a decent program... but then stand on your own merits and tout what's unique about you. I kinda have to agree with this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 07:42 PM) You misspelled buffoon. What does that have to do with his point?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 08:30 AM) Who Drives Innovation? I already said they contribute. Just not nearly as much as you're trying to make it sound like they do. The issue with this is you can apply your logic/point to ANY industry, yes...governments help allow them to exist, but governments taking control of the industry and destroying the ability to compete/profit is what we're talking about here. Nobody here is pretending, or even trying to say that the government isn't in part responsible for helping create an atmosphere for others to drive massive innovation...but let's not jump the shark here. These companies are on their own...if they try and fail, over and over, they'll go bankrupt, and the government won't do anything to stop that...many pharmacutical and medical device companies have gone bankrupt attempting to innovate, and nobody -- including the government -- saved them.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 06:36 PM) I'm certainly interested in the idea of us "innovating for all" so to speak...but I'm not sure if we should all be penalized with an inferior healthcare system for it to happen. It is hard to say whether we come up with medical discoveries and such just because of our free market healthcare system or if it just happens to be true because our country has excellent researchers (perhaps because we have far and away the best higher education system). I'm sure there is a mix of both, but the question is how much of each is responsible. Would an innovative researcher do as much good if he was working at a university and receiving federal research grants rather than in a private lab for a pharmaceutical company? More good? Less good? I suppose that's a loaded question...how much can pharmaceutical companies spend on research, what do they want to research, how available can we make federal grants for medical research, etc. I like that you mention our massive defense budget because it sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at our federal budget and when you look at the rest of the world's defense spending. Maybe we should put some of the burden for all these things like defense, scientific research, etc back on the rest of the world. We don't have to mortgage our own country because we're insecure about the entire world turning on us or failing to do as good of a job with the same resources. I'm also now imagining a federal grant leading to the discovery of some kind of cancer cure/remedy...and some of the people involved in that allocation campaigning on the "I cured cancer" premise Ok, getting back to this...like I said before, you raise some excellent points here. It's unfair to give sole credit to the private market when the other points you raise have merit and have made obvious contributions in the form of R&D over the years. It's not to say innovation doesn't come from elsewhere, but what free market companies tend to spend on R&D far outreaches most anything else, especially government, of course, there are exceptions to every rule. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you start telling the medical industry what people can/should be making, interest in the market will decline rapidly. A lot of people enter that market knowing the sacrifices they make now will be rewarded huge on the back end. Again, there are those that enter the market because they actually want to help people, and would do so whether the back end pay is high or not, but I'd have to say a majority of them wouldn't bother. Pfizer, as a simple example, spends billions on R&D for a single drug, which more often than not fails in trial and the money is lost. When they do hit upon a winner, think Lipitor, they have to make their money back from all the other failed research, not to mention the research that went into the successful one...hence you get a period of high prices to recuperate those losses and move into profit. If you removed their ability to charge high prices by controlling the drug market...these companies wouldn't risk billions knowing they will never make it back. Whether people want to admit it or not, innovation would fall off a cliff. This principal can be applied to almost any market. Look around you, wherever you are sitting right now...90% of everything you see was brought to you by innovation of people/companies looking to make a profit. That's reality, whether people choose to accept that or not. On the flip side of this is a lost argument people *always* fail to mention, and it is -- by far -- the majority reason why our country is in the financial mess it's in. Defense spending. To an absurd degree. The fact that the US basically subsidizes 90% of the free worlds military/defense spending...for free, is something nobody talks about. We always hear about these great "free" health care systems from countries that have a annual defense budget if 14 dollars and 37 cents, giving them tons of money to budget for their health care systems. If we weren't subsidizing that defense budget...we'd probably have more than enough money to pay for "free" healthcare for our own citizens...but reality is what it is. Let me be clear: I don't agree with us being the worlds police...but we are. And while the world loves to "pretend b****" about it...they also rely on us to enable them to do everything else it is they do.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 06:36 PM) I'm certainly interested in the idea of us "innovating for all" so to speak...but I'm not sure if we should all be penalized with an inferior healthcare system for it to happen. It is hard to say whether we come up with medical discoveries and such just because of our free market healthcare system or if it just happens to be true because our country has excellent researchers (perhaps because we have far and away the best higher education system). I'm sure there is a mix of both, but the question is how much of each is responsible. Would an innovative researcher do as much good if he was working at a university and receiving federal research grants rather than in a private lab for a pharmaceutical company? More good? Less good? I suppose that's a loaded question...how much can pharmaceutical companies spend on research, what do they want to research, how available can we make federal grants for medical research, etc. I like that you mention our massive defense budget because it sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at our federal budget and when you look at the rest of the world's defense spending. Maybe we should put some of the burden for all these things like defense, scientific research, etc back on the rest of the world. We don't have to mortgage our own country because we're insecure about the entire world turning on us or failing to do as good of a job with the same resources. I'm also now imagining a federal grant leading to the discovery of some kind of cancer cure/remedy...and some of the people involved in that allocation campaigning on the "I cured cancer" premise This is an excellent post. I'd love to discuss this further when I have some time to put some thoughts in order, but great points.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 04:25 PM) While I'm not particularly optimistic for single-payer in this country any time soon, there's no reason to stop advocating for and discussing it. Yes, there is. It's a great system so long as there is a massive system out there innovating for it. That's what we do. Most medical innovations, and drug innovations come from here. If we also had a single payer system, things would change right along with it. Of course this is something people won't talk about, or they'll post thin evidence stating that a free market system is no more innovative...when it is. That and the other unsaid system in place that basically allows these governments to have a single payer system...since the US is 90% of the defense, they can run a skeleton military. I fully expect you to respond now as to how we haven't innovated the medical/drug system for the entire world...when we have. We've had this conversation already. I know, the us sucks balls, and everywhere else rules. But here you still are.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) I agree, we should let the government negotiate rates. And we're back to square one. This isn't happening, so lets move on already. P.S. The horse is dead. Stop beating it with the futile stick.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) You make great points above. None of them, however, disparage the notion that Gordon Beckham sucks. WOW! 5 2b's with Lower OPS (one was just optioned to the minors, Jemile Weeks). What about the 24 in the league who are better. He sucks, it's plain and simple. Sorry about the joke about you disappearing. You've certainly done that before, but this time you at least took the time to craft a very long response that didn't really prove you correct. And yes - Ian Stewart, Yunel Escobar, Justin Smoak, and Johnny Damon suck fat balls. Yes. Just because players were once good, doesn't mean they still are. Those listed are terribad...just like Beckham is.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) Konerko, AJP, Peavy, Thome, Contreras, Dye, Crede, Uribe, Viciedo, Buerhle, Garland, Garcia, Danks, Rios, Dunn just a few players a good part of Soxtalk (me included in a couple) has written off at some point since I've been around. Now its Beckham. This is good news for him. I have to say, this is a great point.