Balta1701

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:32 PM) I think he was just putting on his lawyer cap on and decomposing every word in my post to twist my logic around. just pointing out that your logic means that either you can't fire ozzie based solely on this season or you have to accept that the Sox have been an above average successful team in previous years.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:28 PM) BS's point is that the AL Central has been pretty weak for the last decade, excluding significant payroll bumps this year, and that the Sox should have had much more success given their payroll levels vs. their competition over that period. Not sure how that leads to it being okay to lose in 2011. You know, I'm not sure that I buy the "AL Central has been pretty weak" for the last decade. The AL East, for example, has had 2-3 moribund franchises for almost the whole decade, the Central has only had one. All of the other 4 teams from the Central have made the playoffs this decade, everyone except Detroit more than once. Every team has had at least 1 down year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:25 PM) It means JR is getting the most wins per dollar. That doesn't mean s*** to me as a fan beyond the long term sustainability of payroll levels. Yes it does, it means you're watching a team that wins more games than it would at the same payroll if we weren't getting that. The White Sox, based on their payroll, should be an average team, winning about 81 games a year. Instead they average about 85.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) I'm not content with losing in any year. But you just told me that it was ok this year.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:20 PM) Key words: this year So, you're content with losing this year and declare that no one should lose their job over this year's performance?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:18 PM) When they start giving rings to teams with good win averages per season I'll start flaunting that stat around. In the meantime, I'll continue to expect a high payroll team in a weak division to start making the post season on a more frequent basis. You do realize that the AL Central is the only division with 3 $100 million+ teams this year, right?

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:22 PM) But if the cheap, available, tickets mean you can see more of a team, wouldn't that lead to a fanbase? I was surprised that the Bears would be an easier competitor than the Bulls. Now I can see why from these posts. I am also starting to believe that the Bears fanbase incudes a lot of "Cubs-like" fans who just enjoy the experience of attending an NFL game. The next question would be, if you had the money and the go ahead to start a team anywhere in the world, where would it be? I'm not certain if Chicago is the ultimate spot. But how long are you willing to lose money on ticket sales to build that fanbase? 30 years, so that the kids can grow up?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) 2005 was a long time ago. We have one of the highest payrolls in the AL and have been in a pretty weak division during that span. I expect a better rate of success. I don't have data including the most recent 2 seasons, but from the period of 1998-2008, the White Sox were #6 in the league in lowest cost per win.

Anyway, back on topic, here come the "Advisors"!

In other words, if you want to down a satellite, don't waste time with the EMP and just throw rocks at it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:49 PM) You pick what's absolutely critical for the system to still perform at least some functions and protect those the most. Anyway, like I said, any electronics put into space are going to have EMI shielding anyway. EMP shielding is just beefing up that same thing. Satellites don't exactly have backup systems. That's the weight problem, you can't overbuild the things. You don't put anything in there that isn't an essential system.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) Williams has frittered away an amazing amount of resources (players and cash) since 2007. And yet, the team has made money.

Beckham wakes up.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) I don't know why everybody thinks a slump was "due." Teams can play winning baseball for a long time, winning series after series if they are not dysfunctionally hot and cold like the Sox. I wouldn't mind if they can Ozzie, but truthfully it won't matter much. Cora is no better and Buddy Bell is a joke. Can you name for me a team in the last few years that has not gone through a dysfunctional cold stretch?

Dodgers have called up prospect Jerry Sands.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) No, not the entire thing, you can wrap essential components. An EMP isn't going to damage a solar panel (I think?) or an antenna. There aren't a lot of "Nonessential components" in satellites.

Now you're defining yourself as realistic?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) Faraday cage. http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/fa...s41elecpuls.htm edit: Terminology might be confusing. "Harden" in the electronics world means "made more resistant to environmental factors," such as static discharge, temperatures, moisture or EMP. lol google search for EMP shielding turns up mostly paranoid survivalist websites. So you need to wrap the entire thing in a conductive layer. That's almost impossible for a full satellite, especially if it has things like solar panels or an antenna sticking out of it. Plus, there's a big weight issue.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) The question is, when Peyton Manning leaves and if the Colts can't make the playoffs consistently anymore, will those people stay Colts fans? A lot of the kids will. They've grown up being Colts fans.

Let's not forget that he thinks it's Ozzie's fault.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) I don't know the physics and I'm too lazy to learn it. There'd have to be some minimum effective charge level that comes with a minimum radius where it'd knock out equipment. You could also probably make it directional. I'm sure any critical satellites are hardened against EMP. How on Earth do you harden a satellite (Or Hell, anything) against an EMP?

Pitch your tail off Johnny.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 01:22 PM) You can't have a setback when you haven't even returned yet. Huh?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) I'd assumed that Chinese and US spy/military satellites aren't hanging out near each other. They kinda are. It's the same space. It's actually a bit overcrowded right now, to the point that new satellites are often being put in higher orbits. And the U.S. has a ****load of satellites.

Here's my take: I don't think the S&P's statement is wrong. I think people who use the S&P's statement to argue that we clearly need to cut back on spending like certain people here are fools...but if you really understand what the S&P is saying, it's investment advice that I'm already following. Right now, we're in the midst of an oil price spike. Every time there's been an oil price spike of this magnitude in the last 40 years it has correlated with the start of a recession. That is a strong economic worry right now. If that were my only concern, I'd be gradually taking money out of the market and moving larger shares into Treasuries because their stability will be valued in an unstable economic situation. However, I'm not doing that yet, and it's not because of confidence in the economy... It's because I'm not confident that the U.S. Congress won't decide to default on the debt. The motivations are there..."it'll just hurt China who holds all our debt"..."We won't agree to this unless more pregnant women die", "the Bonds in the Social Security trust fund don't exist" or whatever version you choose. Furthermore, if oil prices happen to start pushing the economy towards a recession, that's going to push the deficit even higher and make those concerns stronger. The last time the S&P warned that it might consider lowering the U.S. credit rating, it was in 1996, over concerns that the U.S. would default on its debt. That is the right approach for investors right now. I shouldn't have to worry about U.S. T-Bills as much as I am right now.