Balta1701

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 05:12 PM) Meanwhile, it's making it a little better for McQueary. That still leaves me unable to figure out how he kept silent for near a decade, including having Sandusky around PSU events.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) a whole bunch of "That is f***ed up" happened at Penn State over the past decade That report makes it a lot clearer that McQueary really came forward and said that child abuse was happening in what he saw.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) Just need Billups to stay healthy until Rose comes back... It'd be nice to have him healthy all year though, a 4th Quarter lineup of Rose-Billups-Deng-Taj-Noah would be pretty sexy. Seriously...just assume that Rose won't be back next year if you're coming up with a workable plan. If he comes back, he's unlikely to be able to give us the kind of performance we'd need to be legit. If he got to close to Rose, it won't likely be until playoff time. If any plan you come up with assumes "well, if Rose comes back by January"...it's an extremely big gamble.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 03:40 PM) I really think chemistry, continuity and familiarity is being under rated. If you just sign a bunch of new guys, regardless of how good those guys are, I don't think there's going to be enough chemistry on that team to be as good as we were in 2010-2012 (pre Rose injury). I think it's going to be darn near impossible for the Bulls to be as good as they were pre-Rose injury once he comes back.

Police seek charges on former commerce secretary over hit & run incident.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) How much you guys think Billups gonna make this season? He's the guy I want if they can afford him, a SG/SF, and a C (Like Willie Green and Joel Pryzbilla) Very little, probably below the mini-MLE I'd guess. Can't commit much money to him after he played like 20 games last year.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) Tough crowd. There are tough crowds and then there's crossing a line for everyone...

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 02:14 PM) Hard to say because the Knicks were rarely all healthy and clicking at the same time last year. Linsanity happened mostly with Melo and/or Stoudemire out and once those two got back Lin had some issues. I like the Knicks in theory. Lin/Shumpert/Melo/Amare/Chandler is a very talented group. They'd also have some bench production with Fields (a fairly solid all-around player) and Novak (token white shooter). Whether they can all mesh is another story, 3 of those guys seem to play a lot better with the ball in their hands. Plus Chandler seems overdue for a major injury, which would obliterate any hopes of them having a defense. Everything is still extremely preliminary as well. Dwight to Brooklyn isn't official yet. Neither is Lin staying in New York. Roy Hibbert might be a Blazer and Ray Allen is still talking with the Heat and Clippers. All of those have a huge impact on how the East shakes out. Is there any obvious reason to think that Amare isn't starting down the path of increasing injuries and decreasing effectiveness?

Trib

Sickening.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 07:38 PM) Do you know what this means to superstring theory or M theory? Basically very little, as of now...as far as I know, those are currently beyond the realm of what we can reasonably test using experiments here. This step puts together a neat little picture of the subatomic universe going one step below the atom level.

I can't say I'm familiar at all with the drug Avastin, but some brief googling suggests that the issue may be far more complex than "the NHS doesn't want to pay the high cost" and there is legitimate question over the drug's safety/effectiveness as well. Here is an article describing the US FDA cutting back on the things it can be used for due to effectiveness questions. Here is one statement in another article describing the complex questions going around with it: and another One thing definitely worth noting here is that any particular drug, especially the pricey ones...have big money pushing for increased use, so it's going to be very easy to find the person on the street to say "drug x saved my life!" even if the 2 people who would say "side effects of drug x killed me" can't be found on air for some reason. The people who swear by the drug's usefulness will give you only 1 side, and very few places do the kind of comparative effectiveness research needed to really see whether there's a big benefit to these drugs (and again, the PPACA funds this type of research).

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 08:44 AM) Besides KW, Merkin/Rongey and Paddy, where did the idea that he could be a frontline starter come from? Just based on his control? That and, although at lower levels, he has put up some pretty impressive stats (particularly if you like K/BB ratio) despite very little pitching experience.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) I was just reading a story about this (from a few years ago) yesterday, about how some countries like France, with that amazing healthcare system, have higher death rates for more "preventative" cancers because the costs of the drugs to "prevent" or "control" the cancers early on are way too expensive. So, they don't offer them. Do we really want the government deciding what drugs we can/can't get? Especially once everyone is on-board the "oh the gov't will provide everything I need in life!" bandwagon? There are drugs that prevent cancer?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 12:26 AM) Every so once in a while. But there are side effects, end of the world and stuff. But considering the Cubs are currently terrible, we avoid the big sign of the apocalypse. Can you make it a martian meteorite? That'd give me a nice long career.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 08:53 AM) Starting to sound like Dwight is going to get what he wants. ESPN

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 06:13 PM) It is already going around that Dwight is really not possible should this trade go through. I just dont get it. Is that because of the cap...or is that because the authors are assuming that Brook Lopez + whatever other assets they'd have left wouldn't be enough to get Dwight? I'm not counting on the latter.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 05:35 PM) Wouldn't you say it is pretty likely he hasn't been healthy all season long and was trying to pitch through it? Hence, the diminished K numbers and giving up tons of hits/IP. It's pretty clear his stuff just hasn't been there....the numbers from 2011 compared to 2012 aren't even remotely similar, except the BB/9 ratio. His velocity has been in the 89-92 range this season, compared to the numbers we heard when he was acquired, which were more in the 91-94 range. I don't recall hearing 91-94 range, I recall hearing "around 90 but great control"

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 05:34 PM) They don't have Dwight. Well clearly, but when he's demanding to be traded to the Netropolitans...usually those things have an annoying habit of happening. I'm not certain whether they can swing it to make the contracts work after this deal, but starting with Lopez they can send $5 million in salary to Orlando with him and a couple rookies and they're currently sitting on a fair amount of space even after signing Wallace.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) The Nets have agreed to acquire Joe Johnson contingent on Deron Williams re-signing. Makes no f***ing sense at all. Joe Johnson is supposed to make Williams want to stay? Really? Deron Williams Dwight Howard Joe Johnson Gerald Wallace Makings of a pretty solid lineup? Johnson and Wallace arent' #1 options but they don't need to be, even if they're paid like it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) And how do we base how accurate these studies are? "Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 4.4 and 7.4 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks." So this is a racial thing? Seems, according to that study, that stand your ground laws are only bad for white people. Seems like flawed results, because logic would say that standing your ground wouldn't matter what color you are. And 4.4 to 7.4 is +/-3...with numbers that low, that's kind of a statistical reach, is it not? What that might say is that the presence of the law has a big impact on whether or not White people choose to carry. And no, if the quoted margin of error is plus/minus 1.5 (not plus or minus 3), then that means 0 is 4 sigma units away. That means the probability of that result being statistically significant is 99.994%. The other way to evaluate that type of data is to look for...multiple studies performed independently that tell the same story...and we're now up to 2.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) The spending arguments IMO are weak because the countries are difficult to compare side by side. We're an unhealthy nation that needs more medical care to begin with. We undergo more elective procedures. We're probably more medicated than your average European. And we definitely seek out more preventative care. So there's a lot of your cost difference right there. Again, not suggesting the costs aren't out of control or that the money is justified. But it's not like we're spending 5 times as much for the same level (and amount) of care. First of all...none of those should come close to accounting for a trillion dollars of spending per year. Secondly...none of that deals with the fact that 50 million people were still getting left behind inexcusably. And perhaps most interestingly is the other detail buried in your post..."We're an unhealthy nation" but "We undergo more elective procedures", "Seek out more preventative care (I'd be surprised if that were true, especially if you factor in the fraction who have no insurance, but would be happy to see data proving me wrong), and we're "more medicated". If all of those things are true...and yet we're still an unhealthy nation...then those things you quoted are simply failing to produce the kinds of health improvements that the spending on them should produce. That means the money being spent there simply is not working. I'd actually agree with that part that I dragged my way to. We're spending a lot of money on things that don't work, or don't work as well as they can...because, in part, we never do the research to see what works best. That research is funded by the PPACA, which is one of the better things it does. And also, because we treat people not for health outcomes, but to maximize profits. The PPACA has some efforts to shift that system to paying for improving health outcomes rahter than total # of procedures done...but we'll see if those work.

AP reports the official announcement of the discovery of the "Higgs Boson" particle will happen on Wednesday.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 04:06 PM) And i'm tired of comparing the US to other countries. Look at the lifestyles. We live in different cultures. Look at the goods we buy (expect to have) and the things we do. Look at the vast geographic differences and the associated differences in costs of living. Why should we have the same systems for everything? Universal healthcare in other countries isn't some perfect solution either. They have to wait longer for surgical procedures and treatment, most have to buy private insurance on top of their public coverage, they don't have access to the same medications, especially new medications or really expensive preventative care medications, like we do, etc. etc. There are pros and cons for both sides yet everyone thinks the european model is some perfect system. It's not. They pay for it one way or the other, just like you and I do, and in most cases it's inferior care. If the spending were equal and the systems were all universal, I'd say you'd ahve a point here. I think the French/German system works the best, but yes, wait times for elective surgeries for people with insurance are longer there. If we both spent the same amount on the system, and we had better coverage for some drugs than they did, while they had longer/shorter wait times, great. That's just not the case though. If we spent the same %age of GDP on health care as the french, that would save this country somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year. And we're spending that money and still missing nearly 20% of the population. Yes, our wait times are lower for surgeries...but they're not lower when you factor in the number of people who put off procedures because they're uninsured or because they simply can't afford it. When you add in the people who never get the procedures they need, those averages would shoot up. If we're spending that much more money than everyone else, then we ought to get care that is vastly better than everyone else, not competitive with...and we don't. Solve those issues and I'll agree that there are pros and cons to each side...but these are the 2 things that are simply completely broken about the U.S. system. It leaves a huge chunk of it's population out to dry, and it costs an absolute fortune at the same time...and that is compared to systems that have much more government intrusion than ours. The PPACA is hopefully a big step towards solving both of them and letting the U.S. actually innovate its way to a quality health care system.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) In this case, you take the 1% option. However, there is no way to guarantee those percentages wouldn't be flipped dependent on the scenario...and in that case, you take the other. But the data from now multiple studies says...on average, you're more likely to be hurt yourself when you try to defend yourself. THat's the end result of those 2 studies.