NorthSideSox72

I still like Shyamalan's work a lot. Well, except for The Village, which was pretty bad. And I actually didn't see Lady in the Water. But 6th Sense was one of those rare horror films that was actually done well... Signs is, IMHO, his best movie - a very good film that I think is widely misinterpereted... And I like Unbreakable a lot too. Rumors have been that he was lined up to do some of the Potter movies at one point, but they couldn't make the schedules work. I think he'd be fantastic doing them. Maybe it can still be done, on one of the last remaining two.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 11:12 AM) Now, it's REALLY hard to imagine Crede not going to the Giants in the next week or two. 1. Vizquel and Durham are banged up and old so they need infield help badly. 2. They desperately need pop in that lineup with the catcher Molina penciled in at cleanup. 3. They've decided to only keep 11 pitchers and if you look at their rosters, they have a number of good looking young pitchers that they'll have to leave off and the Sox sure could use some young pitching. 4. Rowand and Schueler are pushing for Crede and there has been no other team even mentioned recently in connection with interest in Crede. The two teams need each other. Let's hope it gets done very soon. I'd love another quality young pitcher in the Sox system and the Crede era to be over. Much as it will make me sad to see Joe go, I think this is right on, and its better for the team overall than keeping him. I just hope the return the Sox get for him is good. It will be minor leaguers in any case - hopefully with some good potential.

I know this is way snarky, but, this picture is just priceless...

Buerhle starting, Dotel to make an appearance. Ahem. First game thread of the year. *clears throat* GO YOU WHITE SOX!!!!!

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 09:32 AM) No, it was a 2.8L twin turbo. Sorry, I'm a car guy and a bit of a Porsche nut. That little 20 year old6 cylinder 2.8L put out more HP than my big two year old 6.0L V8 from GM. I'll take your word for it then. Porsche really is an amazing company. A 2.8L 6-cylinder engine, 20 years ago, did all that.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 09:24 AM) Porsche also sold the 959's at massive losses. Around ~500 were produced. They also were not allowed in the US until Bill Gates got the law changed to allow imports of rare automobiles like the 959. Porsche has been kicking butt with relatively-low displacement turbocharged flat-6's for years. Yeah, it cost them even more than that price to make them. Furthering the point. Car companies may indeed be sitting on technologies, but they are also constrained heavily by cost. And as you point out, American companies are far more constrained than others due to their labor situations (and other old, inefficient practices as well). Also, I believe the 959's flat 6 was normally aspirated, wasn't it?

Jeez people, come on. The guy just put a little diddy out there for fun, to get the troops rallied for the season. Cut him a little slack. I for one got a kick out of it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 09:13 AM) Uh huh... nice comeback... You know, I could never solidly 100% say, Ford is sitting on technology... but you could strongly infer it by some of the stuff our team drudged up. They were saying that they could not roll it out because the costs would be too prohibitive UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE at Ford. If they could shed some of the crap (read: labor) then they could almost get there at a cost that wouldn't be so prohibitive. It was quite interesting... Regarding Ford, I'll tell you this from personal experience... I bought an Escape Hybrid earlier this year. There is a long waiting list for them, it takes 3 months or more if you order one (as opposed to waiting and hoping the occasional one that shows up is one you want), and they are selling them ABOVE sticker for the most part. The dealers would love to have more of them to sell - they go like hotcakes. Hell, that car is one of the two or three vehicles likely to save Ford as a car company. So... why the hell aren't they producing more of them? I just fail to see the logic in it. They could probably double production and still sell them all and fast.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 09:07 AM) A 15-20% weight reduction would be HUGE. Unless some exotic materials, like carbon fiber, plummet in price, its not very realistic. These materials also don't really lend themselves to massive-scale mass production. With all of the safety standards the require more and more airbags, more and more electronic controls (stability control and ABS aren't lightweight components!), and consumers demanding more and more gadgets in their cars (do we really need 6 TV screens and a video game system?), it'd be very hard to get the weight down while still building a safe car that people would buy. And if Ford is sitting on these technologies, its no wonder they're going bankrupt. I wasn't on the inside working directly with Ford, but I did take a ME course on internal combustion engines at U of I. The professor worked in the Ford lab and frequently talked about the work they were doing. It was advancements on stuff that's hitting the market now like direct-injection gasoline engines. BTW, it's usually you business-types that us engineers are b****ing about! Back in the early 90's, Porsche produced a limited run of cars called the 959. The general idea was to build a sports car that used whatever materials and technology were available at that time, pretty much regardless of cost, to make the car perform (in all facets) better than anything else ever made for the street. It achieved many of those things. It was the first street car to clock a 0-60 time under 3 seconds (which is just mind-boggling), it could stop 60-0 in like 90 feet, it had all kinds of airbags and other safety features, and it actually got pretty good gas mileage by sports car standards. And they did all of that with a Flat 6 engine too. The car cost about $400,000 in 1992 dollars. I'd guess that's over half a million in current money. That's the issue, as you point out - you COULD make a car that is high mileage, near-indesructible, high performance... it would just cost a fortune.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 02:37 AM) I didn't know a lot of Sox fans took the El to the games. I thought most people drove. My bad. A TON of people do it. I do it, same route that knighni mentioned (blue to red). And even though after the game its a crowded, drunken mess, its still way easier than driving and parking (not to mention cheaper). You can also avoid the crowds a bit by walking a couple blocks east to the Green line.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!" QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 12:54 AM) What to do? I prefer the Bill Cosby approach. Blacks should quit whining about racism and stop committing crimes. It's really simple but as long as they want to live the "thug life" they can spend the bulk of it behind bars. I think you're both missing my main point. I am not asking what to do with criminals - on that I see it no differently than you do. You break the law, you go to jail. Its pretty simple. I was asking more, what to do about the fact that the african american population in this country is so inordinately more poor than others? SS2K5 and CC both made suggestions - education and out-of-wedlock birthrate changes. What would you two suggest?

QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 12:27 AM) No. Ethanol is a really bad idea. It takes more energy to produce it than we get for burning it and it is driving the price of food through the roof across the board. About the only people making out on this are the big farmers who have tons of it planted. Well, if you read my whole post, you'll see I basically agree with you. Ethanol created from sugarcane, switchgrass or other products would be much more energetic, and I could see that being part of the end game if it was done right. I agree with you though, that corn ethanol isn't such a great idea.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 03:47 PM) I think Obama benefits most from a VP with a strong economics or foreign policy background. Bill Richardson says hello.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 05:21 PM) NSide72, you were wrong about the surge. admit it. don't make excuses. your pal, mr_genius. Heh. OK. I'll rely on the guys who seem to know best, on the ground. The information is all there anyway, just not at the top of the news pile. This isn't about the surge being a bad idea, mind you - I just would hate to see this opportunity squandered. The change in tactics that went with the surge did indeed help. But its like a microcosm of the whole war, and the BushCo policy on Iraq... Step 1: Invade/surge Step 2: ... pause... Step 3: Peace in Iraq!!!! That second step is the political part of the solution. And its necessary for success.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) Lots of the problem is the way we fund schools. Property tax funding just reinforces the monetary differences between communities. The system where I live has a HUGE poverty rate. The school my wife teaches in has a 70% poverty rate. The differences between us and any of the adjoining communities are huge, because their tax bases are way bigger. Their systems are better funded because of that. In other words there is no way to catch up. They really need to look at a bigger picture of school funding to iron out those issues. In reality it isn't sex or race that has been shown to be the biggest indicator of how people will do in life, it is socio-economic backround. Agreed on all counts. Socio-economic background is that best indicator.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) Education is the parole officer for the prison of poverty. We HAVE to catch kids at an early age and convince them to have hope in their lives (lack of hope IMO is what makes it easier to commit crimes.) and that education is the key to breaking those cycles. Once they get to adult age and are doing the things that they are getting put into jail for, it is too late. Those behaviors and attitudes are so ingrained, you basically have no chance of changing them. You have to catch kids EARLY. Agreed, education is a huge key. In which case, if you want better equality and better education, you have to look at how schools are funded (ala Kozol's Savage Inequalities).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) Well Balta provided something that changes my view - 32,000 plantiffs. But, I think that punitive damages is what mechanism I'm talking about. It's more simple then that to me, I guess. Don't make it "punitive" - make it damages that people actually lost, and are STILL losing... (and see, I can be civil in these exchanges once in a while... ... I'm on good behaviour today. ) OK, so if these were compensatory damages derived from that math as opposed to punitive, that would be a more accurate judgement financially. I can accept that.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) Well perhaps also good news was that Muqtada al-Sadr renewed his ceasefire for 6 months last saturday. I've heard that this ceasefire was also credited as one of the main reasons that violence is down. That was what I referred to earlier. As I recall, he runs the Shia Ma'adhi army. I could be confusing him with someone else though.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) IIRC it turned into the death count thread and got pretty ugly, which is why it was ended. I actually think that was yet a different one. There have been a few, and all have had ugly moments.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) Because when this was brought up before, how DARE we talk about Al Gore being a greedy capitalistic (read: opportunistic) bastard for making money on something to advance what is really an agenda to make money on? I don't want to debate it again, but that's how I took it. OK. Well that's a different discussion - whether or not he's a saint versus just a capitalist with a charitable streak. In any case, he is definitely a good example of an opportunist in a capitalist society.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) ZING! Why is it even a zing? Its right on, and I personally see no problem with it. He's made some money from it, and he's also helped create money for some solid organizations. Sounds like a great example of capitalism indeed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) Wow. That's crazy, if you think about that for a moment. 7% of African Americans adults behind bars? And 1% of our total adult population? It's not staggaring when you look at percentages, but the numbers are insane. Yeah, that really is disturbing. And while I certainly think that we have much less racism now than we did 30 years ago, that difference in race in prison is hard to ignore. Not that its the result of racism occurring now, necessarily - its probably mostly not. But because of the way blacks were treated previously, they haven't been able to land on equal footing as often. On the other hand, I have a hard time abiding helping one race at the expense of another for any reason, because that's just more racism. So... what to do?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:57 PM) They *should* be penalized... but in a tort case, the judgement should not be that high. That's my point. Should they pay and pay through the nose? YES! But not through this mechanism. It's what drives up costs on everything. Tort reform is needed BADLY in this country, because everyone's sue happy. NSS, you offend me, I was just hurt and mentally wounded by what you just said. I'm going to sue your ass off because... You see what I mean? Now again, Exxon needs to pay, and pay LARGE. But not through this type of mechanism... OK, then I am confused. What is the right mechanism, in your view?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) There are 32,000 plaintiffs. People who lost years of their livelihoods because things like the fishing industry in those areas were destroyed. $2.5 billion over 32,000 plaintiffs is $78125 a person. In other words, no one is getting rich off of this. It's barely covering the money that the people lost due to the years of devastation, and probably isn't doing so for most people given that it's now been 20 years. How much would you make if you'd simply invested $25,000 at 5% interest over those years? (Hint, it comes to $67,857). In other words, if you consider the fact that this has been caught up in the court system for nearly 20 years now, basically Exxon is paying $25,000 a plaintiff at that level. If those are the numbers, then I think the award may be too low, not too high. If a company is going to cause that kind of devastation, they have only themselves to blame for the result. Kap, what happened to the conservatives' mantra of taking responsibility for one's actions, instead of looking for special protection? I mean, if you ruin the livelihoods of 32,000 people, do you not think you should be held responsible?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) It's not up to Justice Roberts to "prevent another large swatch of the country from being destroyed again". You people ever wonder why EVERYTHING costs so damn much? $2.5 BILLION awarded in a lawsuit? Yes, they can afford it, but holy s***, at some point, you have to ask yourself what punitive damages get awarded... and yes, this the consumer will pay for, just like in healthcare. Its also not up to Justice Roberts to protect Exxon Mobil from litigation (as long as its not frivilous). The case was obviously not frivilous, this was a major incident caused by the corporation. I don't know the extent of the damage in this case, but, environmental damage is a very difficult thing to put a price tag on. a few billion dollars may not be out of the realm of reality at all, if the damage was big enough.