NorthSideSox72

Seeing a few more pics of the thing flying, and it had a pretty serious tilt at times. Seems like the boy could have fallen out pretty easily, if he was even in there, given the tilt and that the compartment is so small. They are apparently now scouring video footage from anyone they can find, to see if they can positively say the boy was in there at some point. Still no sign of him anywhere else.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 03:03 PM) No, but these will be some of the people that we will all be forced to pay for under the "no one can be dropped" portion of the plan. Which would in turn probably end up reducing certain medical costs, because more of them would get treatment, be put into programs, etc.

So, could be a hoax. Or, could be the boy wasn't in it at all and ran off. Or, could be the boy fell out. None are good things, but I sure as hell hope it isn't the last one.

Interesting twist: Also, they named their child "Falcon". I'm starting to side with Steve.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) This is good. Now arrest daddy for negligence. let's slow that down a bit. Might want to know what actually happened first. Do we know that?

Its not just scary to think about a crash landing here either. There is also the fact that I'm sure its not exactly warm in Denver right now, and will only be colder as he goes up. He could go into hypothermia pretty quickly.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) I got one for for going 51 in a 45 on Rt 83 when I was a teenager. Ive also gotten numerous tickets for no front plate (which I refuse to get), obstructed view for my tassel hanging from my rear view mirror, tinted plate cover the good old, seat belt when I was actually wearing my seatbelt. My latest one I just had to go to court for because my insurance card was only a temporary card, it was valid, he just thought since it was issued a few months ago I should have the authentic one and figured I should take off work to go show it to the judge. why?

As a general rule, anything less than 5 MPH over won't hold up in court, because it is considered within the margin of error of the radar device. So if I were you, I'd go to court and simply say you were doing 25 according to your speedometer, and you think the radar may have gotten it wrong. I'd be shocked if you didn't get off, or get probation or the like at least.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) That would be part of that overdraft reform bill that we discussed a couple pages ago. I'm pretty sure we were told how bad of an idea reforming that process to make it less like outright theft would be at the time. I can tell you without even looking back, that I was against certain parts of it, but was fine with letting restrictions forcing banks to inform customers what they are getting into. I don't think I spoke specifically about the check order provision, but I'd be OK with that as well.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) Going back a couple of pages ago when you were talking about overdraft fees, I wish someone would lay the smack down on banks who think they're slick by holding onto several small pending charges when you start getting close to zero, then authorizing a larger one that came after the smaller ones first so they can give you overdraft charges on all of them when you really should only be getting one, for the large one. Suntrust does this to my wife all the time, although generally the conversation ends because I tell her "quit complaining to me without doing anything about it, either change banks or STFU." I believe there is legislation pending that would force banks to clear charges in time order, instead of by amount or something arbitrary.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) The bolded part I agree with most of the time, but it depends upon the case. For example, there's a discussion about Sergio Santos and Justin Cassel in the AFL thread. Even though Sergio Santos is not considered a prospect anymore while Cassel is, and even though Cassel has had good success statistically in his minor league career (albeit not this season) while Santos is a freshly-converted relief pitcher, I still would much rather have Santos in my system than Cassel. There's a point players get to where they just don't have enough to get it done in the Majors but they do in the minors, so for that reason I always put tools and scouting reports above everything else. I also don't see age as a really huge factor when it comes to pitchers. I mean it is a big factor of course, and it's ually one of the first things you look at, but stuff, mechanics, and mound presence are all more important than age IMO. But if you have two very good pitching prospects, and one is 20 in low-A while the other is 20 in AA, obviously the guy in AA is going to be considered a much better prospect. Sauer's K/BB numbers are very, very good overall, but I think that stat is pretty much useless anyway. His overall numbers are definitely good, but his H/9 is high and his K rate is below 8. Control and deception make up that K/BB ratio, but his H/9 shows he's hittable. What happens in the higher levels where he's throwing the ball over the plate to better right-handed hitters? He'll still get that sink on the ball, and he'll still get that deception, and the HR/9 rate should be pretty low for Sauer throughout his minor league career, but he'll give up more line shots as he climbs. I just don't think he is a starting prospect and I don't think his arm is enough to rank him above some of our other relief prospects. The K/BB ratio is great but it isn't sustainable, especially as a starter because lefties have hit him very well. I was agreeing with your post, until the bolded. The very low walk rate is very meaningful, because as he refines his pitches, he already has the ability to control well, so those refinements will be more effective. And his K rate isn't spectacular by itself, but having it as high a ratio to his BB rate tells me a lot. And the fact that he's not a high K pitcher by nature and still getting near 8 on his K/9, for a control-reliant pitcher, is a good thing. I think it is a very positive sign.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) And I would completely disagree with that. This is a scouting report on Upchurch from the draft: I've seen video of him too and I really like him a lot. IMO there's nothing that says either Santos Rodriguez or Holmberg are much better prospects at this point. I could see calling them better prospects because they're lefties and had better years than Upchurch has, but that's about it. Santos' upside looks like a late inning reliever and both Holmberg and Upchurch are projectable starting prospects with high ceilings. I don't know why anyone would think Holmberg has a big arm but Upchurch does not. Both have two potential plus offerings and can get it into the low-90's. Both have clean deliveries and throw the ball with movement, and both were taken out of high school and have room to fill out a bit and add strength. I'm one of those people who really like Upchurch, yet I still ranked him 20th and considered going even lower because he had such a terrible year. I ranked Santos Rodriguez 29th only because I couldn't find confirmation on his velocity until after the ranking as there were a lot of bad reports out there saying he was a low-90's guy, which I didn't think was the case at all. But I couldn't find the same reports I had read about Santos when we acquired him, so I dropped him lower than he would have been. I also had Holmberg 26th simply because he is raw and his debut wasn't amazing or anything. I could have definitely went a lot higher on Holmberg too, but I wanted to fit some other guys on there that I think deserved it more. But if I had to name 15 prospects in our system that I would most want to keep instead of a top-15 prospect list, both Holmberg and Upchurch would be on it, and several other players that I put above those guys like Shelby, Nunez, Santeliz, etc. would not be on there. So that explains it from my side as an Upchurch fan. I strongly disagree with the people who don't consider Upchurch a good prospect but do consider players like Carlos Torres and Stephen Sauer good prospects because of their numbers, but that doesn't matter because it's just an opinion, and on the whole the FutureSox lists are good because they consider things from all points of view. And players that miss the list or appear too low only do so because they haven't performed better, and ultimately players of any talent level still have to perform well enough to advance levels and open eyes. Once they do they become no-brainer top-10 guys, at least in our system. Just to add to the whole tools/projectability versus performance argument, are three other scales. One is level - the higher the level of play, the more the balance shifts towards actual performance. Two is age, of course. And three is what you mean by "performance". Sauer's core numbers are pretty good, but what really sticks out is the outstanding K and BB ratios. Even at a low level, those numbers have meaning.

US House committee passes legislation similar to Senate provision, by a decent margin, to regulate OTC derivatives. Forces swaps and other OTC derivatives to use clearing houses, and firms trading as market makers or large-scale hedgers are now going to be subject to regulated capital requirements, and the SEC and CFTC are given more horsepower to monitor and investigate. I'm glad they are doing this, and I'm glad someone was smart enough to keep this to the OTC world, and not pass some sort of panic-driven overarching bill. But, this provision in the bill confuses me: That is incredibly vague, and I hope the language in the bill is more explicit in defining that usage, what constitutes viable liquid non-cash collateral, and who are pure hedgers.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) I'm not going to attempt to say Fox is objective because that would be stupid, but you could probably make a case that the first half of TARP (where the Bush admin propped up the banks) had a lot more to do with the eventual recovery than the second half of TARP Obama's risky investments that haven't paid off yet and we won't find out if they will for a while. I think that is partially true - but the idea that Obama was responsible for what the Dow was doing is just ridiculous.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 09:12 AM) God I love Jon Stewart. Definitely agree with the idea that these 30 GOP'ers who oppose that protection should be ashamed of themselves. That's just awful.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 08:45 AM) Ummm, that's exactly where AIG lost big. A Credit Default Swap is essentially insurance. No, actually, the reason they lost big on CDS's is because they DIDN'T use them as insurance. The original purpose of a CDS for ONE SIDE of the equation was as insurance. But ultimately, its the trading of risk, so the hedging side of the equation (otherwise as insurance) is only part of the market. A small part, as it turns out.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 05:58 PM) Just grabbed it after work from Border's. Its a hard read in places, really tugs at you. The writing is phenomenal in many ways. My personal favorite thing about his books is that, his first person writing doesn't just take the perspective within the confines of the author's grammar. He leaps past that - the writing, pacing of speech, etc. is exactly the way that character would effuse. Its a subtle difference that is hard to describe, but, its incredibly effective, and done only rarely. Enjoy it.

Cassel got hit a bit, not awful, but he did K 4 in 3 IP. Long got hit around worse.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) Well this is just f'n great. What the hell is a pavement blow up. When I read that, I pictured the road exploding. Then, I pictured a blow up doll made of concrete laying there in the road. Pretty sure neither of those is accurate though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) So much for us only caring about places that only have oil... Not sure who your sarcasm is directed at here.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) Most conservatives weren't ever ok with Bush's spending. You make a stupid point here. Well, "most" Republicans in Congress voted right along with the big spending.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 04:17 PM) High 80s fastballs for both Cassel and Long. Wasn't Long supposed to throw harder than that when the Sox drafted him? Not sure on Long, but Cassel is 88-90 usually anyway, so no surprise there. He has to be heavy on control, walk nearly no one, and have solid multiple breaking pitches he can throw for strikes, to be effective.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) He is right though. The piece shed light on an important topic, but there still is no comparison between football and dogfighting. Dogs are animals incapable of making decisions based on logic. Even if the dogs acquired for fighting are trained from birth to fight, they still come from a long line of ancestors captive bred to love and trust human beings. They have no option to "quit" or find a new owner and they are in a sense defenseless as well, because although they have jaws to bite, they do not have the necessary weapons (brainpower) to defend themselves against a master who uses food and attention to trick them into risking their lives needlessly. And on top of that, the dogs 1) do not enjoy it, 2) receive no monetary or other forms of benefits like humans do, 3) receive no medical care, 4) are eventually destroyed and thrown out like garbage, win or lose. Beyond that, running a dogfighting ring requires no skill, no intelligence, it mandates ZERO compassion, and there are no rewards for the competitors of any kind which make the activities worth their risk. If there is any comparison between dogfighting and human beings, the closest thing I could think of would be a situation that made the news before (can't remember when/where this was) where a bunch of staff at a mental health facility conned mentally disabled people into fighting each other. There are dangers involved in contact sports that can end the lives of those athletes involved early and miserably, and it is true that the controlling forces of these things turn and look the other way, but so do the fans, so does the media, and so do the athletes themselves. Brain trauma in contact sports is the pink elephant in the room, nothing more. OTOH, dogfighting is one of the most despicable activities any human being can participate in. You're tricking an animal of low intelligence that was bred to love you into maiming itself for the benefit of your pocketbook. That's highly f***ed up. The article was informative and worth its ink when it dealt with head trauma in football and boxing, but the writer just had to go for the dogfighting connection to get attention. If the guy was just in love with the metaphor it would be different, but he actually tries to make a case that there is a similar trust/love/faith element in both player-game/team and dog-master relationships, and that in each case brutality is inherent to the "sport." That's f***ing ridiculous anyway, because dogfighting is definitely not a sport, it's only something that sick f***s do to make money. Saying an article is stupid and at the same time saying you haven't read it isn't "right", it laughably ironic. As to the point of the article, I would agree they are pretty much unrelated, but I want to read the rest of it at some point later to see if the writer brings up any worthwhile points.

QUOTE (scenario @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Cassell pounding the strikezone. First 17 pitches... 15 strikes... 2 balls. Nice ratio. If he can do that and not get hammered, that's a good sign, because he doesn't really have any plus stuff. He's control-reliant.

Not sure if this is worthy of its own thread, but, none of the others are a good fit. Try to guess the country before clicking the link... There is a country on the Arabian Penninsula in the midst of a bloody civil war, that has displaced about 150,000 people, and killed an unknown number. Some seem to think its a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of whom are accused of supplying one side of the conflict. Saudi and Egypt were involved in the a previous civil war there in the 60's, the country split in two in the 70's, then unified again in the 90's, now is fracturing again. During the Cold War, this country was seen as strategically key to that region because of its location, and both western and Soviet personnel were involved in proxy work there throughout that period. Al Qaeda is involved, and US military lives have been lost there in relatively recent history. And yet, there is nearly no mention of this anywhere. Take a guess what country it is first, then click the link to one of a few stories I could find. I find it fascinating how little we've heard about this, as I think it has serious consequences for the region and US interests. The press is being shut out. Thoughts?