G&T

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 13, 2009 -> 02:51 PM) I think part of the solution here should be fewer pilots on some flights. The way technology is now, planes can 99% fly themselves. Small planes have one pilot instead of two, larger ones two instead of three. Pay instead into technology for better handling the planes from the ground, and the pilot becomes essentially the backup plan. Pay those fewer pilots better. Can planes land themselves? I think there are two pilots in case one gets sick or something happens during the flight and can't fly.

Bases loaded for Lilly? CQ to ph!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 13, 2009 -> 08:53 AM) Fortunately, I think Floyd's problems are primarily mental. He's out of sorts. But I still think he finds a way to put it together and have a decent season from June to the end. Not spectacular, not as good as 2008, but mid-rotation decent. And I saw Fields last night trying to make adjustments as well - we'll see if he can shorten up that bat load a bit. I don't think that's a good thing for a guy like Floyd. If it were MB or Danks then that would be fine because you know they can get over mental lapses. Floyd is guy who will start to dwell on it, like PK. All of a sudden a couple bad starts turns into a bad half of a season.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 13, 2009 -> 12:43 AM) I think that post has more hits then any other one on soxtalk, and I'm serious. Judging by it's contents and the general perverted nature of interweb folks, I'm not surprised....now just give me a minute to collect myself.

So I just found out that if you look at the users online section of the front page of Soxtalk and click on sort by "last click" it will give a list of everything people are looking at. 3 of the guests were looking at an old Kim Smith v. Kiera Knightley thread. I assume the pics came up on a google search. I hope they guests enjoyed their stay.

Thanks for showing up Lilly.

I love that the Indians announcers keep saying how slow the Sox are (Thome, and PK).

I LOVE GETZY!

Getz = wheels.

I don't really think the tag was ever applied to Sizemore, but I'll take it.

The Score, so I assume it came from Cowley, said that he already had a cortizone shot. So it's probably something like tendinitis.

I realize this is in the game thread.

Injured heel per the Score.

This is from a faculty blog from a professor at Northwestern in response to same question asked in this thread: Linky. It's in the comments.

QUOTE (SoxFanInDallas @ May 12, 2009 -> 02:54 PM) Did you not see the movie The Island with Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor? The clones were 'born' in adult form. So, I agree, I would take 9 Pujols and throw in two Scarlett Johansson's to be the ball girls. I did not see it. But I like your angle.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 12, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) That's a good summary of the reasoning behind the hearsay exceptions. However, I question the application of such an exception here, because I think there could be potential insincerity in her letters, given the context of their reportedly contentious divorce. Those have been known to motivate people to say just about anything about their spouses in an attempt to gain leverage or the upper hand. It would be one thing if this was like the Simpson case, where there was other external evidence of abuse, threats, etc., and thus an established, independent foundation supporting Nicole's statements to others that OJ was going to kill her (after their divorce was already final). I don't recall whether there's any of that here. Without that, I think the possible prejudical effect of such statements could seriously overwhelm their probative value, which is relatively nil. The letter from Savio to the States Attorney's office is located here. This is my first time reading it. There are events described therein which can be independently corroborated. Specifically the wrist injury and what appears to be a psychological evaluation of one of the kids. Unfortunately, the kids are probably going to have to take the stand if this guy is going to go to prison.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 12, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) Those Pujols clones would only be three years old in '12. As I understand it, if you clone something, the cells and DNA is as old as the cloned specimen. So while they might look 3 years old, the clone will have 32 years of DNA damage. They better be in the bigs leagues when they are 3, because they'll be retired by age 11 or 12.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 12, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) There really is no "normal" rate, it is dictated by market forces. The swap cash flows are generally made in the same periodicity as the underlying debt instrument, but not necessarily (as, again, there are typical structures, but each swap is a different contract that can have nuances). The debt that is swapped is a "package". It could be a single large bond, like a corporate bond. Or it could be a securitized bundle of debts, like a collection of car loans, for example. If it is a single debt instrument, the option to put the bond on the protection seller is a simple question of whether or not that instrument went into default. If it is a bundle of debts, then it can be more complex - there may be a threshold in the contract for how much of the par went into default, or other scenarios. For T-Bonds, you would swap a given par amount of Bonds. So it acts like a single instrument. Here's my issue: if I'm a seller in a possibly illegal transaction, I want the money moved quickly rather than waiting for my money to slowly come in. The problem is if the buyer isn't gaining anything on the deal and becomes unhappy, he could simply stop payments and the seller would have no recourse because the underlying contract was illegal. And even if the seller claims that the buyer did not make proper installment payments on the protection, this will bring the books to the attention of the court which will eventually find that something is amiss. As a result, the deals must be for low prices which can be covered by the low interest rate. I guess the question is, how much money is actually being swapped and would it be worth it to make such illegal deals. The other option is to hold the up front payment somewhere and slowly wash it over a period of years, but again, the longer it takes to clean the money, the higher the chance of getting caught. I'm not a finance person, so I'm trying to apply practical principles. I think there are too many "ifs" in all this. Unless we see the transaction nothing can be certain.

2 questions: What is the normal interest rate on such transactions and over what period of time? Do companies usually make these agreement only to one form of debt in each contract, or to multiple debts in the same contract?

The only word I could come up with for the trivia question that made sense was pitches, but I thought it was Frank Thomas and then I got really confused.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 11, 2009 -> 11:08 PM) SOunds like the law might be unconstitutional, because it deprives Peterson of his right to confront his accuser, in this case, his dead wife. That's what all hearsay exceptions are. Hearsay is not permitted into evidence because there is no cross-examination, as you said. However, there are a whole bunch of hearsay exceptions including excited utterances, present sense impressions (usually used for 911 calls made by bystanders), business records (made in the regular course of business without knowledge of future litigation), among many others. The letters would be admissible under the theory that the letters contain the actual language of the victim, and because she had no reason to say what she said without some reasoning for it. Essentially, there is a lesser degree of possible insincerity in the letters than in other hearsay statements. Furthermore, the legislature believes that the probative value of letters such as this (particularly in mob cases) outweighs the prejudicial effect. This is likely because the reader of the letters can be cross examined as to their impression of the sincerity of the letter. If, for example, Savios did nothing to try to help her, then the defense will claim that the letters were meaningless. We don't know how the court will rule. I guarantee the defense will claim that the law is unconstitutional and drag it as high as they can to get it declared unconstitutional.

That puck handling by Kane was ridiculous.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 11, 2009 -> 04:09 PM) ...and after hanging up. Yeah there was a caller who called them out for not saying it to his face . . . er ear...er directly anyway.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 11, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) What was the context of it? Or is he just making that assumption since the Sox didn't call him up and instead opted for Richard to make the start this week? Dan stated that it was too bad Marquez wasn't coming up and Terry said he was hurt, and then stated that "his White Sox people" say that the organization doesn't see him as a major leaguer. It was not his opinion. He said it was the view of people in the organization. Again, TIFWIW. The Score posts their audio on the website. The comment should either be in the first hour of B&B or early in the second hour. It isn't posted yet, but it will be eventually.