Balta1701

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) Ozzie goes with Mack over Pods as the replacement leadoff guy. A sign of things to come? Mack is actually hitting worse than Podsednik this month.

By the way, the Yankees officially lost, 12-2

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) Still thrilled? As obsessed as Ozzie is with the R/L matchup, yes, I'm still thrilled with MMac's performance, because there's no good reason not to use Thornton there unless he's hurt. Or hell, even Cotts.

If All MacDougal ever did for this team was retire Sweeney late in games for the next 2 seasons, I'd be absolutely thrilled.

RMack in for Pablo, MMac still in

Here's the Detroit Free Press profile of that judge. Feel free to read and judge for yourself. The question of course is going to wind up being whether or not the 5-4 majority from the Hamdan decision holds together on this.

4 DP's for us today. Big turnaround from yesterday. QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 12:57 PM) What happened? I still don't agree with using MacDougal last night. He's the type of guy who you need to keep fresh. He threw 6 pitches that inning.

MMac replaces Buehrle

That was our first hit since the 3rd inning.

How many jams does mark want to get himself in...

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) i know Sandy Alomar is 56 but hes been playing really well for us. Much better than the WIdge He has more than 1 hit. That sums it all up.

PABLOWNED! Alomar to 3rd also. Nicely.

Baltimore up 7-2 on the Yankees now. Top 5. Tribe up 3-1 still on the Twinkees, top 6.

434 feet is the estimate

Why do I get the feeling this game will be 9-9 after the leadoff man hits in the bottom of the 9th?

27 homers given up by Buehrle this season now.

Probably worth noting the trend lines in that poll...July13-18 poll in () Lieberman: 49 (51) Lamont: 38 (27) Schlesinger: 4 (9)

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) Shouldn't that definition also include a gain of information? For example, to evolve from a single-celled organism to a multi-celled organism would require a gain in information.A gain in information, if we want to call it that (I'm not a fan of that term since there's no real great definition for the total amount of information contained within a DNA Unit) would also fit...anything which changes the ratio of alleles in a population would fit that definition, including the appearance of new mutations. Well, yeah, the big problem you run into in providing a concrete example is time, in that significant changes in species, to the point where 2 formerly joined populations will be unable to breed if they rejoin each other, simply does take quite a few generations. It has been observed in plants, however, with the classic example being wheat, where a series of mutations led to the development of the modern-day grain from older plants. It has also been observed in the laboratory...just one example, using the classic fruit flies that a lot of scientists play with because they do reproduce quickly...Rice and Salt (1988) placed originally genetically matching groups of fruit flies under different conditions of food, water, light, and so forth, and after several generations, they brought the groups back together, and found that they were different enough that the two groups did not interbreed. Here and here are some short lists of examples where scientists have in fact observed speciation, or what you might call macro-evolution, taking place.

A U.S. District Judge in Michigan has ruled Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it stopped. Glenn Greenwald is of course on top of it. Notably, this is now 2 courts in a row who have ignored the "This trial cannot happen because of national security" defense.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 08:58 AM) I know, I just think the label gets used like the guy leads off 4-5 times a game. As long as that player is a high OBP guy he should be able to leadoff. I'm willing to take either a high OBP or a guy with a moderate OBP but really good speed. The high OBP guy gets himself on base for the guys behind him and allows them to hit the ball out of the park, the guy with the speed gets himself on base less, but when he gets on base, he's immediately in scoring position, and the 2-3 guys behind him can knock him in with a hit or even a sac fly. Problem with Podsednik right now is he's neither.

I still think Ross Gload has it in him to be the starting 1st baseman for a big league team if he ever gets the shot. He controls the bat really well, doesn't have the power of our guys, but should be able to hit .300+ with moderate power over a full season if he's given the shot. It's sort of a shame that the 2 guys in front of him are just so bloody good.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 07:54 AM) I am curious about what people think of the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. An example of micro-evolution would be moths changing their wing color to live in a darkening forest, or the birds on an island changing their beak size based upon different environmental influences. An example of macro-evolution would be the jump from ape to man. Do you make that distinction or not? Personally, I think there is a distinction, but the distinction is unimportant. The entire difference between them is a result of the size of the population you're allowing to evolve. The most strict definition of evolution would be any change in the frequency of alleles in a population. This can happen through random chance even (i.e. you go from 51% of a population being blonde to 52% just through the number of children conceived in a generation or something like that) or it can happen due to selective pressures. What you refer to as "Micro-evolution" would be anything that impacts such a large group of individuals so as to not really produce 2 distinct populations. What you'd define as "Macro-evolution" is something that actually leads to division and reproductive isolation between 2 groups of what was formerly a single species, where one group adopts a characteristic not present in the other group. The reality of this is, it's all a matter of population size and isolation. If you have a small population of a species with enough diversity to be able to keep itself going, it is vastly more likely that mutations which arise within this group will be adopted within a short amount of time. However, if you have a large population, it is going to take much longer and much larger selective pressures for a new trait to be adopted throughout the population. In one case, the isolation of a smaller group will encourage more rapid "Macro-evolution", while in the other case, the breeding of a larger group will lead to the adoption of new traits in what you'd call "Micro-evolution". I for one see it as a distinction without a difference. The only real dividing line is one of population size. The larger a population is, the more likely its genetic makeup is to stay steady, while the smaller a population is, the more likely it is that traits can be adopted throughout a group.

Vulcan Mind Meld.

Mark Buehrle needs to show some Marbles. That is all.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 05:49 AM) The funny thing about the leadoff hitter is that they are only guaranteed to leadoff once a game. If the Sox move Pods, they will more than likely pickup a leadoff hitter at another position (SS). Yes, they only lead off once per game, but they also quite often have the chance to set the table for your 2-5 hitters. Their performance in front of those guys directly impacts the performance of your big guns.