jackie hayes

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2008 -> 12:27 PM) So then you're essentially saying that the line should be drawn where a prosthetic is designed such that it equals the performance of the best human being, but not better? I think no matter what it winds up being such a grey area that it's almost impossible to draw that line. How do you tell if a prosthetic enables performance of one person versus another? I think the argument is that a prosthetic should be allowed if it restores the ability that the sprinter would have had, given normal development. Not that it should be allowed up to the point where he is equal to the best in the field. As for it being a gray area, that would be my argument against it. The body seems too intricate too allow anyone to calculate the net effect with any acceptable degree of confidence. What we really need is some sprinters to volunteer for a good, rigorous controlled experiment...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2008 -> 01:04 PM) So the question then becomes, at what point in the development of these prosthetics do you draw the line and say "No more"? Presumably these will just get better and stronger with time, and eventually it's entirely plausible that you could have your olympics competed in solely by people with prosthetic legs because they've reached a point where no human legs can keep up. Well, no, not really. If the testing is done to ensure that the prosthetics have no net advantage, and done accurately, then runners with prosthetics would have...no net advantage. The percentage of runners with prosthetics would be just the percentage of good athletes who have prosthetics, which would be a very small number. For the record, I actually voted no, but I'm willing to do the Devil's advocate thing because I think there are good args on both sides.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 16, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) Thats the thing, that DNA isnt going to be there very long so if she wants to do something it has to be done immediately and you have to go to the ER quickly and more than likely wouldnt have time to set something like this up. The new way allows her to pull the evidence and pretty much, store it until she figures out what she wants to do. But the physical evidence is more than just semen. She would have to take further steps to fake the physical injuries associated with rape, and construct the story, and she'd also have to do those things right away. I find it hard to believe that a woman would have sex with someone, make it look like she'd been raped, then just wait to decide what to do. It seems like once you've decided to fake the injuries, you're already pretty dedicated to the scam, so you'd just call in the blackmail right away. I'm having a hard time imagining a woman who would go to such lengths and then have moral qualms about blackmail.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 16, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) There is very strong evidence that it gives him a large competitive advantage. 1. It makes the limbs much lighter thus he uses much less energy then other athletes , so he can run faster longer. 2. The prosthetic legs have a greater return of energy so he can move quicker (picture you runnig in sand and him running on cement) 3. There is no energy spent on lateral and vertical movement at the foot and ankle. Since his is solid all of the energy can be spent on forward motion. watch him run. Runners will have some up and down motion. He stays level saving alot of energy. Whether or not he should be allowed to run is a good discussion but he does have a significant advatage over other runners. Well, I don't think he's denying that there are some advantages. He seems to be saying there is no net advantage. Which seems plausible to me (I don't know, I'm just saying it may be true). Wouldn't there also be some competing disadvantages (like the propulsion provided by your calf muscles)?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 16, 2008 -> 11:35 AM) You didnt read the article obviously. Its not storing evidence in personal boxes. I know its cynical to think but this situation is very real: Say a rich or famous guy meets a girl at a bar or where ever and they end up hooking up. Say for whatever reason, she either planned it all along or even just gets pissed because the guy doesnt call her. She can go to the hospital, get a rape kit without anything being reported to the police and the hospital will hang on to the dna without contacting police. Thus giving the woman the opportunity to contact the man and say, if you dont give me "X" Im going to report this as rape. Now, even if you could end up proving your innocence later on. You would still have to pay for a lawyer, go to court, and most importantly everyone would know you were accused of rape. For the rest of your life that will stick with you. Or even if a married guy cheats on his wife a girl could blackmail him because he more than likely would pay so his wife wouldnt find out. I agree that something needed to be done to make the 60% of rapes that go unreported come out so that people cant get away with them as easily. I just hope they have a plan to prevent false accusations. Look at Duke Lacrosse...Maybe, make the punishment for a false accusation or extortion the same punishment as the rape itself. I know that sounds harsh, but people have to be too scared to try and do that and harsh punishment might be the only way. No, I read the article, and I asked why this is of particular concern with these kits. As you point out, this happens now, like in the Duke case. I don't see this skyrocketing because these kits are available. Maybe the reading problem belongs to you.

QUOTE (mreye @ May 16, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) Nope, not at all. QUOTE (lostfan @ May 16, 2008 -> 11:23 AM) That kind of stuff really happens unfortunately. In my mind it's a couple steps from being as bad as an actual rape, because not only can false accusers ruin a man's life with the stigma of being a rapist (even if he is acquitted and she is found to be lying), they are just making it that much more difficult for actual rape victims to come forward or be believed in some cases. "Women" who lie about being raped for their own personal gain deserve every bit of the punishments they get. However, I think this is a good move and the positives far outweigh any potential downside. You both missed my point, and mreye inadvertantly helped make it. These kits don't make it much easier to lie about a rape, that I can see. Those links show that it happens now, even without these kits being widely available, and any woman wanting to blackmail someone could just as easily do so before going to the ER. So I don't see why it has anything to do with these kits.

Bump (from the waaaaaaayback machine). Pistorius WILL be allowed to compete for a spot: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/sports/o...s/17runner.html It's an interesting precedent -- there must be strong evidence that a prosthetic gives someone an advantage, or he must be allowed to compete. It shifts the burden of proof from the athlete to the sport's governing committee. Still an interesting story, too, to me.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 16, 2008 -> 10:47 AM) I think the premise behind this is good. Rape is one of the worst crimes there are. I just hope they have a way that they can prevent this as being used as a tactic for things like blackmail. Especially for wealthy people or celebrities. I guess you could add in married men but people might be less sympathetic but nobody deserves to be accused of rape wrongly. So, you're imagining women who fake a rape, store the evidence in one of these boxes, and then go to the innocent guy and tell him to cough up the money or else it'll be opened up? That's the only way I can make sense of this... I somewhat doubt that's a real concern...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) Zimbabwe has been a case study in how to destroy a nation in a short period of time. They were one of the most propserous Africian nations there was, until Mugabe got it in his head to completely redistribute all wealth in that country. The entire economy is destroyed and in shambles. They used to be self-sufficient in food stuffs, but now there are no commodities left, combined with price controls, and no one has anything. Their currency is worthless, and inflation is something like 6 figures a year. Yes that is 100,000%, compared to high estimates of 5-6% here in the US. It's higher than 100,000% now, and climbing. It was predicted to reach 1 mil percent + at some point within the next year or two, iirc. To be fair, the "redistribution" was absolutely a disastrous policy, and it would have been harmful no matter how it was done. But Mugabe's particular method (basically giving it all to his cronies, and they pass out part, etc -- the machine politics of seizure) is responsible for the extent of the disaster. Considering the history, I have some sympathy with the basic premise of the land reforms. But there are ways to redistribute wealth other than grabbing everything and handing it to a schmuck who has no interest in or knowledge about using it wisely, while destroying every notion of property rights.

Intimidation in Zimbabwe as it approaches its runoff election -- police are regularly storming Anglican churches on Sundays to prevent worship. (Except for one apostate church run by a Mugabe patsy.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/world/af...16zimbabwe.html

I don't think it's a bad idea. See if he makes it through this year fully healthy, then you try to buy out a year, maybe two. I wouldn't do it right this moment -- both for the health check, and because this pace he's on is pretty ridiculous. If you pay him based on the past month and a half, it would be stratospheric. If he can sustain it for a year, I'd say he's worth it anyway. If he comes back to earth, he'll still be good, but you're paying a few dollars less.

2 for 4 w/ a homer and a steal. The guy is unreal. Houston has him for a steal, too. His contract averages about $14 mil per year. For the numbers he puts up, that's a great deal.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 15, 2008 -> 04:44 PM) He's also facing the Padres today. Good point...

QUOTE (fathom @ May 15, 2008 -> 04:37 PM) He has an above average slider...that's all you need in the NL. The rest of the NL Central got pounded today. His career whip is about 1.5, and it's never been much better than that. (A least not in a while.) All of a sudden he's Johan. It can't go on. I can't even believe it's gone on this long. I was literally agape when I looked at the box score. Unbefrigginlievable.

Ryan Dempster. What the hell.

"There was a leak, the govt could have stopped it. They could have prevented the book from being published, or at worst they could have asked for a restraining order preventing the sections of the grand jury testimony from being released." Wrong again. The government never promised that it would never be leaked, because they can't promise that. That's an impossibility. What they promised is that they would not release it and that anyone who did release it would be prosecuted. Which is exactly what happened. They did not promise to be gods and control the actions of third parties. The 5th amendment protects against LEGAL self-incrimination. It does not allow you to refuse to make statements that could embarrass you. Once the threat of LEGAL prosecution is lifted, the 5th amendment simply does not apply. So Bonds was obligated to testify. The most you can say is that the government put Bonds in an awkward position. But they have no obligation to avoid that, so it was perfectly fair -- it was WELL within "the rules". Them's the breaks. And the government could not stop the publication of the transcripts because the journalists were not committing a crime in the publication of the material. This is a basic freedom of the press issue, and it's yet another topic that has been covered before in these sorts of threads.

Very nice. Jacobs is a nice player, but definitely replaceable. I do think Lee's better than I gave him credit for, but still, Howard easily makes up for it. I've been trying to land him in one of my leagues, but no such luck. Great deal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) Well because I dont agree with Grand Jury's. The entire premise of the Grand Jury is that it is supposed to be secret, so secret that the information is never to be seen by the public. Because of the "secretiveness" you are not allowed to use the 5th amendment protection of not incriminating yourself. Thus Bonds was in a catch-22. He could testify the truth, have it revealed and have his legacy tarnished. Or, he could deny it, and let the govt prove him wrong. Its easy to say that "Oh if only he told the truth." But that simply does not assess the situation of a grand jury and being forced to testify without 5th amendment protection. The facts are the govt promised that it would be secret, the only reason you dont get 5th amendment protection is because it should be secret. So please dont say that I defended perjury, I attacked the Grand Jury proceeding and showed that it is no longer "secret" and therefore Bonds should have had 5th amendment protections. If Bonds pleads the 5th, he never is charged with perjury either. Just he is not allowed to plead the 5th in a grand jury proceeding, if he does not testify he can be sent to jail. The only reason that our judicial system allows this is because grand juries are supposed to be entirely sealed and secret. /shrugs But maybe people on the board think its fair that Bonds was forced to testify, promised that no matter what nothing he said would ever be released to the public and then have the transcripts released. To me, that just goes against our entire judicial system and process. If the govt makes a deal predicated on a fact, and that fact is not true, then they should not be able to hold the other party to that same deal. Now, if the transcripts are never released and Bonds perjured, it would be an entirely different fact pattern. But as the facts are, he was right that the testimony would not be kept secret, and therefore right in his refusal to play by their rules. Why should Bonds have to follow the rules when the govt doesnt? Sigh... As many times as this debate happens, you continue to misrepresent the facts. It's sad. The government did not release the transcript until he was charged with perjury. At that point, it's part of the evidence against him, and he knew that those were "the rules". If you mean the leak, we know that the government did not do that. So whatever you meant, you're wrong. I wish just once you'd try to win this argument without lying through your teeth.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 13, 2008 -> 07:59 PM) O'Brien wasnt very good at first. but now I like him way more than Leno. HUGE understatement. He was godawful. I think he's even said as much in some bits. Which is why I'll wait and see on Fallon. I can't imagine how it could work, but the same was true of Conan, and damned if he didn't come through in a big way.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 14, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) Quick Hit: If Edwards endorsed Obama, could we argue his "popular votes" should be transfered to Obama if nothing more than on a symbolic level? No, no way, no how.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2008 -> 01:58 PM) That may be the catalyst of the whole thing, but the charges are because he perjured himself to the grand jury. If he doesn't lie, then there's nothing to charge him with. How someone could defend perjury and blame it on a book is beyond me. Exactly. You look at the people involved in the BALCO case, and many of them admitted that they knowingly took steroids. The ones who lied about it, and against whom strong cases could be built, got indicted. The rest didn't. The idea that they're targeting big names is a joke, unless I'm unaware of the huge Tammy Thomas following which dwarfs Gary Sheffield's.

They just decided the supplemental picks weren't cool enough to bother with?

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 13, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) Perhaps I am not explaining myself properly. My theory, I've had enough to eat, pass it on. Your theory. f*** 'em stop the aid so everyone starves. And stopping aid helps how? Mind pointing out where I said that? I'm actually more in favor of the French suggestion that the UN should invoke its obligation to protect and go over the head of Myanmar's government. And to whatever extent possible, everyone should stir up a palpable s***-storm for China just before the Olympics to get them to actually do something. But thanks for your assumption. The "pass it on" idea is cute, and as a kindergartener I may have found it compelling. It's not going to happen here. But keep on making ludicrous statements, like comparing this to Katrina. I'm out.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 13, 2008 -> 12:23 PM) I agree, the government's response could be better. Just like we could have done better in Katrina. And we do have more resources. We also have the resources to get in and then take over a country. Our country has a long standing tradition of better access to everything for the wealthy and connected. Including government services in time of need. I fail to see how stopping prayer will help. I fail to see how stopping the aid will help. In your words, what a plan . . . Fighting the government may help, but with people dying, we just have to pile enough aid to help the privileged and the needy. "Just like we could have done better in Katrina." No, no, no, no, no. It's a ridiculous comparison. It's like saying, Sure, Pol Pot could have done better, just like Pres Bush could have made better decisions once in a while. You seem to think that if we just send enough, they'll see the light and start an aggressive campaign to save the dying instead of just selling it and lining their own pockets while being lazy s***s. That, somehow, rewarding them for what amounts to murder will make them conscientious. All I'll say is that that is a very, very strange idea, but you're welcome to it.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 13, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) I'm not certain if it was being un-cynical, or hyper-cynical. I'll bet there isn't a government in the world that wouldn't feed themselves, and their military first. Glory hogging is also almost universal. Blocking aid workers, again almost universal. After 9-11 we blocked some rescue teams from Canada and after Katrina we blocked Mexican workers who wanted to go to N.O. to help. Now we can spin that work into making our government look bad and blocking help, or we could spin it to make the government look good and protecting our borders. Every country feels they are competent humans, capable of getting the job done, no better then someone living in the US. A few may even be correct. What their military is doing is clearly wrong, but we ain't going to change it without bombs. So keep flooding the area with supplies and pray. Just, no. First of all, the US actually has the technology to accomplish rescue missions, while Myanmar has only a handful of helicopters, many of which are too small and unsuitable to make a significant impact. Second, the US did accept foreign help after disasters. Just because we didn't take everyone who volunteered does not make us like a country that's approved visas for something like 2 workers (and refuses all foreigners access to the delta). Finally, it's not like they're feeding starving soldiers who are working competently to aid the refugees. They're receiving the aid and warehousing it while passing off small quantities of rotten food to a couple villages, and there are suggestions that they may be selling the good stuff on the black market. Anyone in the US military who acted similarly or approved similar actions would have the hell court martialed out of him. His life would be ruined. It's vile behavior because whether or not they are "competent humans", they are not even trying to "get the job done". They just don't give a f*** how many people die, as long as people in other areas see them -- and only them -- looking good on tv. I fail to see how prayer is going to change the situation. It's not bad luck killing people, it's human corruption. You keep giving the junta more stuff, they keep getting richer. What a plan...