NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) I assumed the Volt was like the other electric cars that required a station, not just a typical outlet. But you still need some sort of infrastructure in place or people won't by the car, waste of money or not. Why would I buy one of these cars if I couldn't re-power it except at home? It's not like there's a random outlet somewhere in the city I can plug my car into. I think you are still misunderstanding something here... the Volt is NOT an all-electric car. Its a plug-in hybrid. It runs on electric only for 40-ish miles, then becomes a pretty efficient hybrid just like any other. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) Warranties cover the batteries from breaking...not maintaining charge...so they can warranty them for 900 years...but after 2 years, if they can't hold a charge, they aren't going to replace them for free... That's a sneaky, and almost useless warranty. That's like the current warranty you have on your breaks. If they "break", they'll fix them...if you wear them out, you get to pay. You are not correct here. In fact, the batteries are warrantied for 10 years on my car, I've read the battery warranty part because I had this fear, and it DOES include any significant loss of charging ability.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) You might be right, but I find that hard to believe. If Chevy is going to make a serious effort, they would have made more than 800 or whatever Volts. I think the bigger problem is that the infrastructure is not there yet to support these vehicles. It's slowing getting there, but so far downtown i've only seen one charging station, and it's stuck in a 10 dollar an hour parking garage. Getting back to the financial aspect of the thread, anyone read any studies about the cost of these electric vehicles? Obviously you're not paying gas, but what's the cost in electricity you're going to use to charge the car? How much do those charging stations cost (and how long does it take?) I feel like in this respect the industry really put the cart before the horse. This is not a problem of infrastructure for the Volt. You can plug it in at home with a normal outlet or a faster one, and its a hybrid engine after the 40 miles of electric-only kick out. The only reason infrastructure is an issue for the Volt is on long distance trips, like road trips of multiple hours, which are rare for most people. Now for all-electrics like the Leaf and the Tesla cars, yes, its an infrastructure problem. The research you are asking for has been done. The companies publish information about charging times, and mileage ratings used typical electricity rates to compare. Not sure how you see this as cart before the horse, and furthermore, if you had the infrastructure with no cars, everyone would complain it was a waste of money. They need to grow together, and they are.

New jobs number comes in at 192k, 222k from the private sector, and UE actually goes down again to 8.9%. All numbers easily beat expectations. Also, January number revised upward from 36k to 63k. Big day. This after the most recent UE benefits number going down to 368k, well below expecations of 400k, and lowest in 2.5 years. Prior week revised down to 388k instead of 391k. 4 week moving average now 388.5k, solidly below the 425k baddie mark, below 400k, and approaching the 375k large scale growth number.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 05:17 PM) I mean, if someone I work with takes a folder full of reports and analytical products I've done in the past year (which will have my name, and phone number at work on it) and burns them to a CD and mails it to Wikileaks and then I have to answer to a bunch of self-righteous media hacks about some s*** that was taken blatantly out of context, and where none of them even attempt to put it in its proper context, I'm going to want to punch that person in the face. That reminds me of a hilarious story I read the other day in the Business section of the Trib. You know how you get emails from airlines if you are a frequent flier? Ones that are "addressed" to you, saying "Hey Billy Oswald" (or whatever your name is, your frequent flier number, address, etc.), you have X number of miles to use! Well, American Airlines sent out a Billy Oswald email to everyone... and they all contained Billy Oswald's information. One guy. Link

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Edmunds has a "Top 10" break-even hybrids and diesels list. http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/...s-for-2011.html Interesting that so many luxury cars have such short paypack periods, I wasn't expecting that. Also, there ARE still tax credits for alt vehicles, because the Volt and Leaf are eligible. I am not sure if traditional hybrids are still eligible, they used to work on a concept of number of vehicles manufactured per model. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 08:39 PM) fuel efficient autos are here to stay. there are some nice hybrids out there now and the price on these cars should decrease over time. with gas price increases, it becomes a wise financial move if nothing else. No doubt, the trend will continue. Every year there are more models available, and sales go up in large % jumps. Just a matter of time before they become commonplace.

Rep just emailed saying they are going out the door now. Should get them any day. Psyched.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) FYI as of December 31st, 2010, there are no more federal tax credits for buying any hybrid vehicle. Just doing a quick comparison of a Ford Fusion SEL vs Hybrid (seemed similar in features), it'd be about 66k miles with gas at $4.10/gallon to break even. Of course, immediate financial impacts aren't the only concern for most people shopping for a Hybrid eg I don't see any financial gain from buying cage-free eggs. There were still credits when I bought, my math was different than this. Jas, same to you - without the tax credits, the payoff is a lot further out now. Remember too that in my case, I bought just before the ridiculous run-up of gas prices in 2008, and we were paying north of $4 in the city.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 07:20 AM) I hate reality TV as well but i've always loved Amazing Race. Agree, its the only one I've seen that I could stomach.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 10:24 PM) Where it doesn't make sense is in the new luxury hybrid SUV's, where the difference is like $10k or more. But I don't think those people are buying the hybrid model because they are concerned about the recapture time. Well yeah, because they know that about those buyers. That's different math.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) And I have no idea how you saved with the hybrid unless you drive a ton more than I do. I bought a new ford escape 2010 over a year ago. When i ran the numbers it was going to take me something like 6.5 or 7.5 years to get my money back on the extra 14-15k in cost of getting the hybrid model. I can't remember, but I think the credit you got expired and/or went down, because that was never a significant reduction in the amount of years it was going to take. The difference between hybrid and not in the FEH is like $3800. Tax break was $3000. Mileage difference is variable depending on whether you are comparing two new cars (i.e. you are buying a new one regardless), or comparing to your previous car at its mileage. Paying off an $800 difference was actually well under a year for us if compared to the previous car (also a small to medium SUV), more like 1.5 years comparing the two models.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) What's wrong with the analogy? Why would a company that owns such a valuable product be so willing to throw it away and put themselves out of business? Where are you getting this? What company is making that choice?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) Ok, "more attractive" but not enough to make any serious change. Take away the subsidies on wind/solar power and they wouldn't operate without a loss right? Hybrids have been around for 4-5 years at this point, and it's not like everyone drives them (and they're still not cost effective). I'm interested to see how the electric car thing works out, but again that's a decade or more away before that's a real alternative. I just don't see it. This is like the NFL right now saying, screw working on a new agreement, the future is arena football, so let's switch. They'd never do that, because they make a s*** ton of money producing the NFL. Why would oil-gas based companies suddenly decide it's time to change unless there's a motivation ($$) to do it? The demand is simply not there and really they hold most of the bargaining chips with the government on this issue. Now, that's not to say that the government shouldn't be finding other technologies. I'm in full support of a man-to-the-moon style shift to finding that. Let's do it. But in the meantime, let's make use of the available oil resources we have. LOL at the bolded, come on dude, at least try to make an effort here. Hybrids, plug-ins and electrics have continued to grow quickly every year. They are still far too low, but to say its not a real alternative for another decade is missing the fact that its already an alternative today. And by the way, saying hybrids aren't cost effective doesn't make much sense to me, unless I am misunderstanding you. I bought a Ford Escape Hybrid in Jan of 2008, and between the tax incentive and the miles I drove with the difference in mileage, I made up the cost in a year. Without the tax break, it would be 2.5 years. And that number keeps going down as the tech matures and as gas prices increase. I suppose if you plan to buy a new car every year, then maybe it doesn't make sense yet, as much so anyway. Also worth noting, I cannot believe how well this car is retaining value. Its 3 years old with 40k+ miles on it, and the blue book mid-value on it is still 70% of what I paid for the car. More than that if you consider the tax rebate into the equation. That is way above normal, I wasn't even expecting that benefit, but apparently demand is still quite high even for a 3 year old hybrid.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) 6 IP of hitless, scoreless baseball from our starters. By 6, do you mean 3? Bruney gave up a hit in the 4th, Cofield one so far in the 5th. At least that's what Gameday is showing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 02:42 PM) Why can't we do both? I'd be in for that, as long as its actually both, and not just oil subsidies and then a small pittance for the actual future-oriented stuff. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) Alternatives are ALWAYS going to be less attractive, otherwise it would have happened 30-40 years ago. IMO it's not going to be like flipping a switch. We're not going to go to bed one night and wake up with a completely new energy infrastructure. So why not plan in the short term to supplement our oil reserves and become less dependent on crazy middle eastern tyrants, while at the same time offering investments, money and incentives to other transportation technologies. Bolded just not true. Alternatives have become more and more attractive and will continue to do so. But here is the main problem. Societies often tend to not adapt to changing resource situations fast enough - food, water, energy - and this has been the downfall of more than a few civilizations. We have to be smarter than that, and not allow the country to continue plowing down a road that will end in disaster.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 01:23 PM) How about quit acting like not drilling in the short term is a solution? I'd be all for allowing drilling in already-approved reserve areas as much as they want to, if that got a compromise of having some long-term thinking and doing the smart thing as well. Heck, even allow more drilling areas, as long as they aren't in legally protected lands.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) Dallas had way more potential than Kroeger ever did. Not saying its a perfect comparison, just trying to give people an idea of what his place is relative to this team.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) The "huge win" comes with a huge price. This is going to kill poor families who can afford to have their transportation costs potentially multiply. That has been my biggest problem with all of this so far. See, I don't think that's accurate at all. You are assuming I am talking about carbon taxing - which I am not. That's not a model I am in favor of. Let's split this up into two categories for now, just to simplify it - cost of fixed structure energy (electricity for homes and businesses), and cost of transportation (gas for cars, planes, rail). Yes there are other areas where oil is used, but let's stick with these for discussion for now. In terms of the fixed structure energy, electricity, the reality is that the cost to provide that electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar (and others) is actually much lower than oil/gas/coal. The problematic costs though are two-fold. One, you have the upfront cost of setting up the power providing hardware - mills, panels, cable, etc. Two, you have the power balancing infrastructure problem - distributing electricity from these new generation locations to the grid. So, this is where the government can and should step in - its national infrastructure. If the upfront costs are brought down significantly, then poor or rich people can both spend a lot LESS on energy, not more. Furthermore, you can be intelligent in the way you deal with infrastructure, by mandating net billing and net power capabilities on existing local grids, allowing for a distributed model. Do these things, and not only will there not be a cost increase, there will be a dramatic decrease over time, especially when you consider the continuing trend of rising oil and gas prices. This area alone will significantly lower demand for oil products, and gas prices can then go down. Which brings us to the transportation discussion. Here I agree with you that there is a lot of risk of causing a spike in costs over the coming years, before real savings are seen. And that is a danger. Its also why I don't like the idea of significantly increasing the gasoline taxes. Instead, I think other methods will work better, such as: --A series of steps to further entrench efforts to build hybrid, electric and other alternative fuel or higher efficiency vehicles, including direct funding of research, performance-based rewards, tax breaks for purchase (without the assinine sales limits), infrastructure for charging electrics, and yes, mileage standards for all cars SOLD in the US, not just those manufactured here (if you do it as manufactured here, you are handicapping job creators). --Do everything possible to make rail a better option for more people, not just in urban areas, but regionally as well. Direct funding is good, but also taking the handcuffs off Amtrak (they have some goofy rules about mandatory service that forces them to lose big money). --Taxing oil, not gas - and not doing it at too high a level. This shifts the burden somewhat, but not entirely, off poorer people. There are other ideas I like as well, I don't have time to write them all out here. And before you go jumping on me for this, I am NOT saying that you can shield people entirely from the bump in prices here. The combination of increasing oil costs (which are going to happen anyway), and the fact that my ideas will only partially offset the initial costs of changing the way we travel, mean everyone will feel some pain. Well, guess what? This is internalizing externalities, and its dealing with the real impacts of what we do when we drive. All of us. There are further no-brainers out there too that will help make these things possible, like removing subsidies for oil, but apparently our "leaders" can't even agree on that simple idea. And the thing is, by investing all this money, you are not just lowering costs in the long run. You are doing a lot more, and this is where the multipiler kicks in. You are creating huge industry, with good paying jobs, that EXPORT goods. You are also giving everyone more money in their pocket as years and decades go on, which will benefit everyone.

Dallas MacPherson is, in some ways, like an infield version of Josh Kroeger when he arrived in the Sox system a couple years ago. Lots of potential never fully realized, still the possibility he makes it work, but chances are remote, and there is a crowd in front of him. He's a guy worth taking a flyer on in AAA, and if the need is there for him, he's your backup plan. Viciedo is an outfielder now, it seems. Vizquel is a bench guy and then probably retiring. The only real 3B candidates are Morel and Teahen, and they are pretty much both assured a roster spot. If Morel stumbles really badly, or if he or Teahen or one of the 1B/DH types are injured, then Dallas comes into the picture.

Still amazes me that people don't see the huge win in getting off oil, and making it a moon-mission level agenda item. So many jobs to be created, so much long term savings in energy costs, so much less pollution. There are few things the federal government can spend money on that would get a better multiplier.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 10:51 PM) I noticed the same thing about Jacob Petricka. SSS was the only one with Andre Rienzo. We (FS) had Rienzo in a tie at 11th, just outside the top 10.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) Onions prepared in any way? Because I absolutely love sauteed onions on a burger or steak, but raw onions don't do it for me on a burger. I don't mind a few chopped onions on a chili dog, but any more than "a few" and it becomes overpowering. And I absolutely love onion straws (like a blooming onion) but really don't like onion rings. Basically, too much raw onion flavor can ruin a dish, but just a hint of it or have them cooked until all of the sugars come out of them makes for some tasty food. I can't speak for Milkman, but I despise onions as well - and its a texture thing. Gag-inducing. I will actually put onion powder in chili when I make it, I don't mind a little of the flavor when balanced with other things. QUOTE (IChaseBlackWood @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 07:01 PM) female police officers Have to ask why on that one. QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 11:29 PM) Amen. Plus, even the ones that are hot often times really aren't any hotter than girls you'll see pretty commonly in "real life". Completely agree. I'm a lot more likely to see a woman just anywhere in the real world is attractive, than one I see on TV or in a movie. There are a few exceptions though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 07:46 AM) During the continuing resolution vote yesterday, the Democrats put up another clearly partisan but admittedly fun amendment that would remove oil production subsidies. The Republicans voted unanimously against it. All but 12 Democrats voted for it. I gotta say, a unanimous vote of one side in favor of oil subidies? That's solid political hardball. So much for the supposedly independent GOP'ers who are going after sacred cows. The tea party may have its roots in Libertarianism, and some of its followers may truly believe in that sort of way... but the ones who got elected (aside from maybe Rand Paul) are politically no different than the rest of the GOP in their continuing effort to run further to the absurd.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 06:47 PM) 9 out of 15. tough quiz 9 for me as well. That was fun, need more of this kind of thing.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Blondes. Most of them aren't really blondes anyway.

Coffee Wine Dave Matthews (his band is great, but his voice is terrible, he comes off super-creepy) Most celebrity "hot" girls (usually lacking in curves and way too much makeup) Video or computer games Jake Peavy (but I'm just fine with him leading the Sox to the post-season) Dancing Most popular TV shows (a few exceptions: Outsourced, 30 Rock)