Balta1701

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 08:49 AM) As to the body issue, didn't they say the coffin was empty? Also the reason that it took 25 years to come out was that they found it and then the local authorities closed it down before they could investigate further. I'd imagine Cameron's pull ($) helped them change their mind. I'm wondering more personally why the first way this was presented was in the form of a made-for-tv documentary, instead of actually being published in an archeological journal or Nature, where it could go through some sort of peer review process.

"I call him the professa!"

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) Quote of the Day from our esteemed Federal Reserve Bank President Ben Bernanke "The markets appear to be working well" Thanks Mr Obvious you are a life saver! Working well? After yesterday's computer issues?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 08:42 AM) Anyone still upset about not signing this guy? Can we get Podsednik on some of the same stuff?

QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 07:37 PM) If this is true, the Angels should be able to void Matthews' contract for misrepresenting himself. Hopefully, teams are smart enough to include steroid-related out clauses in newer contracts after the whole Giambi mess. But then again, who knows if the union would even tolerate that, I doubt it honestly. I bet that the Angels are on the hook unless he winds up in jail.

I would say last night's Special Comment was particularly good. (my favorite part is the Marshall plan stuff)

The most recent Gore camp response:

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Very well put. And I might also add that these players have surrounded themselves with people that tell them how good they are...agents, lawyers, advisors...and that's not including friends and family. So, just about every player overvalues himself. And don't forget...when a hack like Jason Marquis can get 3/$21mil, or Ted Lilly gets 4/$40mil, what does that say to someone who outperforms him, like a Buehrle? Wouldn't you feel the same way, Balta? I know I would. Honestly, I don't think I would, but maybe that's just me. You put me even close to the same level, to the point where I never have to worry about money again, and I just can't see the difference. If I want to play somewhere, the difference between $40 and $50 million means nothing to me. And in fact, if I like being on a team that wins, that $10 million might be the difference between me getting extra sleep in October and me wearing a ring.

So, here be the question: did the entire world think that China could keep chugging along at 10% growth for the infinite future?

QUOTE(Beltin @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 03:41 PM) Really? How does that work out? The Nats weren't far behind in the suck department. I would think they should be compensated for the loss. Nats picks

QUOTE(rowandrules83 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) One also has to factor in if the team can truly afford a player. In the case of the sox, they aren't exactly a small market team. If I was a player who got offered a few million more by a team while the sox (or any other big-market team) was offering less when they could easily spend a little more, I'd probably feel disrespected or unwanted. An example that comes to mind is Johnny Damon I'll take that example and run with it in fact. The Boston media helped turn Damon into a star. The fans loved him. Won a ring there. If he really cared about where he was playing, if he really cared about that city, seriously, what can he buy wiht $50 million that he can't buy with $40 million? Respect? B.s. If you need to be the highest paid player at your position before you feel like you have "respect", then you have a lot more issues for me to not care about.

From the perspective of a person who will be lucky to earn as much in a lifetime as most of the guys who you care about jumping ship earn in a season...I feel i have every right to be angry at a player who pretends they care about staying in 1 spot then leaves over 20-30% of a $50 million contract. Don't tell me that you have to take care of your family and the difference between doing that is $20-$30 million when you're already making $30 million.

Honestly, this is a field I really can't say I'm an expert in, because I've never actually heard of this process. The principle seems sound, and they're correct that at those temperatures you're basically vaporizing anything organic and potentially dangerous, and if it has been employed at some scale in Japan, you'd think it would be applicable on larger scales as well. The one thing I do wonder about just offhand is the safety of the glassy, waste road-making material, because it's usually not just silicates that wind up in the trash, if someone throws out a calculator or something, you can get all of the trace elements that are used in the construction concentrated in there, and those are not the kind of things you want to introduce to the environment. I think this article (http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/editorials/article/0,,TCP_24460_5354745,00.html) seems to have the right idea...the risks to the county seem to be quite small and manageable, while the potential benefits could be large. The only obvious risk I can think of would be some sort of major accident, but I don't see why the risk of that would be greater here than at any other sort of industrial plant.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) FWIW, renewable energy and other forms of non-fossil fuel energy cost significantly more per kWh than energy from a coal or natural gas plant. So, really, you'd need to compare the total energy usage (not $ amount) and where that energy is coming from. Don't you get it? Saying that he spends a lot more money sounds worse (even though one of the reasons he's spending a lot more money is that he is buying from the renewable energy program i linked above).

Is that CNN article out of date or something? The linked article only has it down 212.

The authors of "Game of Shadows" have released a new afterward/chapter to their book detailing the 06 season and more on Bonds's size change due to his abuse of HGH. SI Has the afterward available at that page. Just what MLB wanted around spring training, I can imagine.

With the Undergrads here? Yowza, now that is cruel and unusual.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) Have you ate at Taco Bell lately? I know I haven't. I haven't eaten fast food in months, but that's more a function of having no money. I do have a bag of (surprisingly cheap) spinach in my fridge that I'm working through right now.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 10:10 AM) Here's a dumb question. If he's paying to use renewable resources to power his house, does that make him less of a hypocrite? Mr. Gore also participates in the TVA's Green Power switch program, which allows him to purchase his home's energy directly from renewable energy sources in the area at a somewhat elevated cost.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 09:08 AM) That may be true, but information detailing secret US funding going to support Sunni jihadists with Al Qaeda links in an effort to counter Shiite influence in the Middle East is a bombshell, even for Hersh. Add in the implications that Negroponte stepped down because the whole thing was starting to mirror Iran-Contra and it's a pretty big story for anybody paying attention. See, here's my problem with Sy Hersh...as far as I'm concerned, I don't see any reason to trust him that much more than someone like Judy Miller (with the notable exception of him having been in the "correct" group on Iraq, along with very few others). Hersh's business is exactly the same sort of business that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war; unattributed sources. Single anonymous source links. In 2002, the NY Times kept running single, anonymous source links as front page articles, chirping that Iraq had bought aluminum tubes for weapons production and so forth. Those claims, however, could never be investigated or validated in any real way, because no one would go on record with it. And eventually, it turned out that they were all false, and the anonymous sources had wound up all getting their intel from 1 or 2 liars within Chalabi's group. Because no one would go on record, we could never evaluate the veracity of the claims, and we wound up stuck in an idiotic war for 4 years so far. Hersh, sadly, does exactly the same thing. For example, Sy Hersh has been beating the drumbeats on Iran now for over 2 years. That link is to a 2005 piece where one of his anonymous sources reports that the U.S. has been conducting recon operations inside Iran since mid-2004. As far as I know, this still to this day has not been corroborated. Furthermore, Hersh was predicting a military strike against Iran back in 05 as well, something that hasn't happened. Because so few of Hersh's key sources are willing to sacrifice their careers by going on record...we're left with the same mess of mistakes that got us into Iraq. Hersh says that he has a source saying the Bush Administration is funding Sunni groups. Well, that's all well and good, but what other possible motives might someone have for telling him that? To discredit specific people within the administration who are advocating that position? To send a message to other governments (the saudis) that we will do more against Iran? Without knowing who the people are, and hearing from them, it's simply impossible to evaluate things like this. Hersh has one thing going for him; he's made his bet on the Bush Administration being stupid enough to attack Iran. It sure looks like that's a pretty darn safe bet to make. But other than that, I just can't bring myself to trust him or his "sources", because I have no ability to evaluate what any of them actually want.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) If you preach that violence is bad and then go out and beat the crap out of someone, your message obviously is still good but your credibility in giving that message should take a hit. Gore is a hypocrite. That doesn't mean his mission is a joke or that his message isn't important. But his credibility should be questioned when he doesn't practice what he preaches (even if he does take SOME steps that others don't). And he might not even be that big of a hypocrite. But I find it laughable there are hard-core environmentalists here who gloss over the fact that this guys house uses more energy in a month than the average Americans home does in a year. On top of the caravan of cars he travels with, the private jet, the vacation homes, etc…. What bothers me though is these people who are pretending that just because you believe in a cause, you have to take it to the fullest possible extreme to support it. You label Mr. Gore a hypocrite, despite the fact that it's been demonstrated here that his carbon footprint is likely smaller than yours, due to the fact that he's spending money to offset it. He's not out there calling for everyone to give up their livelihoods. In fact, the specific, personal call that Mr. Gore has asked for on the part of everyone is to a.) take steps to reduce your footprint as much as possible (by say, installing solar panels, etc.) and b.) for what you can't reduce reasonably, spend the money on carbon credits to offset the rest. Mr. Gore is not asking us to give up electricity, or heating our homes, or anything else. He's asking us to take small steps to buy ourselves more time. And he is doing exactly that with his own life, probably more than any of us are even.

So, here's a giant shocker...you know how we've suddenly starting having much more common outbreaks of food-borne pathogens, like the E-Coli spinach outbreak or the contaminated food @ Taco bell a few weeks ago? Guess what...it just so happens that we've also been slashing the budget at the FDA that goes to inspecting for those sorts of problems. Link. Don't worry, I'm sure the Free Market will take care of things, right? After all, people clearly have the ability to evaluate on their own whether or not their food is safe to eat, right?

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) The more I watch the shows back-to-back, the more I realize how much better Prison Break is than 24. The twists and turns on Prison Break actually make sense, while the 24 stuff is so recycled. I tried prison break for a couple seasons and got sick of it...it just moved along too slow, and so ardently refused to actually settle any of the topic threads that it opened that i just couldn't take it any moer.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 05:50 AM) There is a big difference between pot and, say, cocaine. Cocaine creates a dangerous person to society, is highly addictive, and as a general rule tends to ruin people's lives. Pot does none of those things, except for maybe a very small percentage of the time. I'm OK with legalizing pot, but I wouldn't go so far as all drugs. Well, then here's the other side of the token...what is more effective with a person who winds up addicted to cocaine, meth, etc., (pick your drug); locking them up as punishment, or finding a way to treat that person? In some cases, yeah, locking them up is the best option. But I can't imagine anyone here would argue that it's the best option in every single case; that we wouldn't be better off getting some people treatment instead of tossing them into prison.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 06:12 AM) No he's not at all. By purchasing carbon credits all he is doing is reducing the amount available IN AN OPTIONAL PROGRAM. For everyone else who doesn't follow those rules, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. If they man were actually practicing what he preached he wouldn't own a gigantic energy wasting house. He would bulldose that house, plant a forest preserve, and live in a tiny little place that used as little energy as possible. But hey, he bought Carbon credits so everything is cool, right? Yeah I touched that boy, but hey, I prayed for forgiveness so its all cool. Just like people who rightfully look at people who want to stand up as authority figures on a subject, and preach to people how they should live their lives, people are going to be really interested to see that those people are more than accountable for their actions. Buying your pennance doesn't make a difference. Just because Al was lucky enough to have a grandpa who got rich in the oil business, so he can afford to make movies about things, doesn't mean he can buy his guiltfree sleep. At least not in my eyes. Ok, so I'm going to chime in here, try to stay out of some of the sniping, totally avoid commenting on the child molester comparison, and just say that the way you present the carbon trading programs is not at all how any of them work. I'm not exactly certain which version of the carbon trading program Mr. Gore is involved in (different countries have different rules), but the key point to make is that it isn't how you present it; an optional program that makes no difference. For the system currently operating in Europe, if you buy some of those credits, you are actually removing carbon from the Earth as a whole. That is because the system in Europe is actually a cap and trade system; there are a specific number of credits allocated to each country. If a country does not use up its credits, by cutting emissions more rapidly than the protocols require through the implementation of greener technology, then they are able to sell those credits. Or, to put it another way; if someone purchases credits that are for sale, then those gases can not be emitted by some other industry. While the U.S. has been unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of these programs, to pretend that they are voluntary when they are in fact becoming mandatory over much of the world is simply wrong. Al Gore is participating in a voluntary way in a mandatory program overseas, according to those press reports. In other words, he is taking an extra step to remove what C his family emits from the system. That is an important step...and in all honesty, you'd think it would be something the free-marketers would support...because if you strongly support the development of renewable energy, one big way to encourage renewable energy would be to buy up carbon credits, and thus pump up the demand for renewable energy overseas (Because there would be less room for carbon emission). And one point I would like to make beyond that. The reality of Global warming is that it is a major problem, but it is not a major problem that is going to kill us tomorrow. The one nice thing is; if we take some steps now, we actually have time. Those of us who beleive it is a major problem that requires a major solution are also usually going to say that the solution doesn't require us to move back to the stone age. It doesn't require us to bulldoze all of America and plant trees, it doesn't require us to kill 5 billion people. What we need most right now is time. We need time for additional technologies to come on line for energy generation and carbon sequestration. Even if we bulldozed all of civilization and planted trees, it still would not be nearly enough to make up for what we have already released (although the drop in emissions would have a major impact). What we need to do is give ourselves more time. We are not asking for people to give up their livelihoods. If you're a millionaire now, global climate change does not mean you can't be one tomorrow (unless your money is tied up in real estate in Florida). What we need to do right now is begin a process of slowing down the release of emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy (which is exactly what purchasing carbon credits do). If we do that, and combine it with a large scale effort on the part of both government and industry to find alternative sources of energy (which is also something strongly encouraged by a carbon trading system), then we can find ourselves the time we need to actually solve this problem. No one, at least no reasonable person, is asking everyone to give up their livelihood, no matter what condition it may be in. That is not needed to solve this problem. All that is needed is the will to make a few small changes. That's it.