NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) Good thing there isn't a monopoly then. One thing I haven't heard discussed much, is I'd really like to see some sort of encouragement for employers to offer services from multiple insurers, and let people choose. Some companies do this already, but not many.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:50 AM) I feel like they have every right to do it if the state allows it, but at the same time, why? It's so obnoxious. Yeah, I get it. You support 2A rights. You're also an attention whore. Now I'm walking around in public with my kids and I don't want to take my eyes off you. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Hell I am one of those people who hates crowds because I am constantly watching everyone else for the one jackass anyway, this would just make it worse. USSS has said its no biggie to them, these people were not allowed inside their perimeter. So from a Presidential protection point of view, probably not a big issue. The question is more about public safety. But they are allowed, so, there it is.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) If all taxation is theft, therefor there should be NO taxation, how does he propose we... pay the president? pay congress? What will he say when his local roads are nothing but gravel with deep potholes? Who will he call when his hose is broken into or is on fire? Oh man, I'd hate it if my hose was on fire. That sounds really painful. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Let 'em carry. I think its pathetic and cowardly - they obviously can't get their point across in any other way, so they resort to intimidation via weaponry, the hallmark of someone who has already lost. But its perfectly legal, so, let 'em be. You start trying to take their guns away, and you end up making things much, much worse.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) Well, there are programs like that in place. We have something called DSM, which stands for Demand Side Management. This focuses on programs which utilities can work with customers in order to reduce energy demands on the utility while saving money for the customer. One such program is called Cool Share, which allows the utility to control the compressor of the customer's central air conditioning system during particular hours on particular days (such as when the customer knows they will not be home). This reduces consumption, while at the same time saves the customer money. I know there are other programs under the DSM umbrella, I am just not certain of the particulars of all of them. In regards to the community-based energy you refer to, who is going to pay to maintain a community wind turbine? Who is going to pay to install the solar panels? While I appreciate the idea of staying agile, these are incredibly inefficient ways in which to provide alternative energy. You're talking about power that is going to cost 5 times or more what fossil fuels cost at a time when many consumers are complaining about the price of fossil fuels. Of course it costs more right now - this is the natural curve that pretty much all technology follows. And usually, if we are talking about personal computers or blu ray players, there is no need for the government to interfere with the slow progression to cheapness of those technologies (because they are luxury items). In this case, as we all seem to agree to some extent, you cannot just wait around for that to progress naturally. You need to fund R&D, and/or consumer demand, via grants or tax breaks or the like. This is true regardless of where or how you employ the system. So IMO, you promote both. You fund R&D, you give tax breaks to utilities, businesses and consumers. You find ways to make sure the grid can handle various different models, and see what bubbles to the top. In any case, what you don't do, is look at it from a purely large-plant energy production model point of view. That's like trying to build a PC while thinking like a mainframe architect. Yes, the mainframe is more efficient for computing power, but its not necessarily the best model (client-server).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 08:08 AM) We already have that, as I understand it. We own, or contract for the rights to operate, several small renewable energy plants (I believe there are seventy or so in our system currently) which range from geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, hydro, etc. In the system I work in, we probably get 10-15 % of our capacity from sources such as these. To really make a dent, and to have any chance of coming anywhere near the cost of fossil fuel costs, you're going to eventually have to build larger plants with more capacity. Luckily, in Nevada, we have some real choices and possibilities because of the sheer quantities of land available to us (and the 300 days of sunlight a year). However, the majority of states don't have that luxury. No, you are missing my point (and I admit I was vague). I mean fully distributed. Kind of like distributed computing. I mean making sure that any grid is capable of net billing, and is efficient at net power production and distribution. You then target individual energy users (homeowners and businesses) via R+D funded tech and tax incentives to do what they can individually to reduce energy use (smarter or better equipment, insulation, etc.), and to produce their own (solar primarily for homes, but also wind or other methods for larger facilities). Don't focus solely on plant production (though you will still need some of that). Next level up from that, as well, is community-based energy. neighborhoods or associations build small cooperative plants, that just have a small field of solar panels or wind turbines or water mills or whatever is locally appropriate, going back into the grid, with either a localized billing net or an association set up to distribute the credit. I just think that the best way to stay agile and avoid the kind of behind-tech commitment you are fearing is to build a system that is smaller and more agile by nature.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 12:33 PM) Balta, I understand that you are the board scientist, so I won't attempt to get too deep into the science with you, but I will comment on things from the "Power Company" perspective, as I am currently working as a trader for one. I can tell you that the problem with building these large renewable plants now is that the technology is changing so rapidly (or at least there is the perception that it is, or will be) that there is a fear of committing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to an inferior technology or a technology that will be outdated in a decade. Secondly, in this current economic climate, it is extraordinarily difficult to raise rates to pay for such technology. My company recently invested several hundred million in a combined-cycle natural gas plant, in an effort to make us less vulnerable to rising coal prices as well as the power marketplace. Even though this plant will probably save our rate payers tens of millions of dollars over the next decade, they are furious that we raised their rates (very marginally) in order to pay for the plant. Obviously, natural gas is not a renewable technology, but it is far cleaner than coal, and yet, the rate payers do not take that into account when considering their bill. They want the cheapest energy they can get, bar none. While the public says it wants renewable energy, what it really means (at least in this economy) is that it wants renewable energy, and it wants it at a cheaper cost than what it is currently paying. There simply is no technology currently available that a) is a similar price per megawatt hour as fossil fuels; AND B) is not an intermittent resource; AND would work well in large volumes with our current electricity grid. In fact, there is nothing that is particularly close. While government mandates will push utilities and marketers to build projects which will satisfy minimum renewable energy requirements, these projects come at an increased cost over fossil fuels, especially when you consider the price certain states will have to pay in order to purchase credits because there is no economically feasible way for them to meet the government-imposed minimums themselves. Rather than squandering billions of dollars on artificial caps and credits and all the other legal fictions which really don't result in any sort of significant improvement, dump all the monies into R&D and actually figure out the technology to replace fossil fuels. Something competitive in price and reliability, so that the public will buy into it, even after it hits their pocketbook. I have two words for you: distributed system.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 02:27 AM) Miguel Gonzalez was moved to the Barons roster today. Donny Lucy was put on the DL. Jared Price is still on the temporary inactive list, which left only Adam Ricks available to catch. Gonzalez should only be there as a temporary emergency option until Price returns from whatever is keeping him away. The Barons are in Zebulon, NC, which is not far from Bristol, TN/VA. The Barons have to have their playoff roster set by Tuesday. If they needed a long term option at catcher with the absence of Lucy and Price, Gonzalez wouldn't have been promoted. He's there for the short term. Any word on what the deal is with Lucy?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:06 PM) If its most like Flowers is a huge upgrade over .280 with 15 homers, they might as well start making his bust for Cooperstown. If Flowers sticks as a catcher, and that is still a big if, catching will take its toll on him. I remember when the White Sox couldn't wait to get rid of Carlton Fisk behind the plate. First Joel Skinner, who was pretty highly thought of, although IIRC, didn't do too much in the minors, the Karkovice a #1 pick who had a huge season in Birmingham as a 22 year old. I wouldn't be surprised if his season in Birmingham was better than what Flowers did this year. AJ's OPS numbers as a Sox player (full years 2005-2008): .728, .769, .712, .728 Those are pretty good for a catcher, but nothing spectacular. Being significantly better, say around .800, would be considered a pretty big upgrade, and I think that's a real possibility for Flowers in his prime years. But Flowers would have to do that consistently for 15-20 years (meaning until he was 40) to put up HOF numbers. So when comparing to AJ, who is past his prime (probably), no, you don't need to put up HOF type numbers. At all.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:18 PM) I wasn't listening, but it looks like Donny Lucy came out of the game after getting a hit. Not good, because Adam Ricks had to come in and Jared Price was put on the temporary inactive list for some reason the other day. Hopefully not bereavement, but usually the case. I saw that too - recap says Lucy reached on a base hit to the third baseman, then was PR'd for by Ricks. Man, ever since that May 2008 injury, things have just gone really badly for Donny. And it seemed back then, at the time of the injury, like he was doing well in AAA and ready to take over as the backup C.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 04:11 PM) The guy is actually right though. We couldn't simply recreate the Apollo missions today if we wanted to. Why? Because no one is set up to do anything similar in terms of design or construction or materials. If you dumped a trillion dollars in to it, you could probably recreate it. Boeing would be thrilled. But that's about it. We'll get there pretty soon again, probably for a lot less money too. He's not right then - he's being intellecually dishonest. He's saying it was never possible.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Hopefully Freddie is a nightmare for other teams to face. I liked the move to sign Gacia over the Colon experience Sounds like a really awful rollercoaster at some theme park in Ohio.

Wow, just saw that the Cubs are up 17-2 in the 5th freakin inning - scored 10 runs in the 2nd. It's amazing how predictable that team is. Beat bad teams, lose to good teams, suffer numerous injuries along the way. Like clockwork.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) I'm starting to come over to the oust Pods sentiment He's been having a great OBP year. Everything else has been suspect of course, as is his way. But now my worries about that high average are creeping up. He's getting a lot of infield hits, which is great...but when we face great teams, especially in the playoffs, we cant count on him being able to poke and slap at some of the greatest pitchers in the game. We've gotta get Rios a lot of starts, and get him centerfield for all close games by the later innings. Oust him? Holy crap people, let's take it easy. With Rios here he will play less, which is fine, but he's still getting on base at a .349 clip, still playing better defense than Dye and possibly TCQ (the latter won't last of course), still has been very clutch in a number of Sox wins, and is still the best leadoff option on the team. He wasn't going to keep hitting .315, we all knew that - he's in a slump. Its really only a concern if he doesn't come out of it.

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) Let me reiterate my position from my first post... I do not take all of this as fact. I just said that I looked around at some websites and the counter evidence was intriguing and worth a second thought. It's an interesting topic to discuss. When I read a story I do not need a citation to find it interesting. I'm not going to write to NASA and demand they release the 'hidden' story. This is just something I stumbled upon and found intriguing, and I wished to share with others. Interesting, I agree. But when a guy with a site like that makes statements crediting scientists with supposed positions, and provides no citation whatsoever, to me that pretty much says "I am talking out of my ass" (the author of the site, not you).

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) This thread is about unpopular opinions, no? Unpopular is all good. A factual claim unfounded in any sort of evidence, professional expertise or reality, I can't get my head around.

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) HE SUCKS I am astounded by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:52 PM) In the section of the 33 things towards the bottom of the site So... in the face of all the huge number of scientists, NASA, and everyone else saying that it happened... your evidence against it is an uncited source on an obsessed guy's website about a supposed NASA astrophysicist? It doesn't bother you that there is no name, no citation, no quote, not anything like that?

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) It was in the site I provided above. Lot's of garbage to get through, yes, but there is some science provided on that site. I searched that entire site for "NASA", looked at the areas around it, and saw no citations of any NASA scientists, at all, saying what you are saying. My search must not have worked right. Can you quote this supposed passage?

Freddy threads merged. Enjoy.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) They also play "Suicide is Painless" for every home batters' at bat. Every at bat? That would get annoying really fast, even for the A's fans in the stadium.

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) Given your history of very thorough rebuttals, I must say that was a little weak, with all due respect. I'm not claiming that I buy into it, but it's interesting listening to the other side's point of view. For instance, I don't doubt we've had landers on the moon; these rovers could easily have made those tracks and claimed they were from the original landers. And like I said, the image anomalies don't concern me, I don't really buy into those... It's the fact that many current and past NASA scientists say that landing a man on the moon and getting him back is a feat unattainable by our current technology, given the radiation problems, etc. Where have you seen that cited?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 12:22 PM) The interesting thing though is...the change from cycle to cycle seems to be decreasing somewhat, as people seem to cluster more with "Their own kind". It's not a hard and fast rule, but people who are left leaning keep tending to find ways to move to cities, California, NY, etc., people who are right leaning are finding suburban communities in the south to move to. The only trend that really seems to plausibly change that is the growing latino community. You couldn't really have predicted the change in the 70's to now (at least not all of it). You also can't predict the new ones. Too many dynamics, too many things we cannot anticipate.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 12:16 PM) I should be behind the big screen tonight since that game is a PDT start adn on WGN. Hope to see Jose throw a god game to follow up Danks and Buerhle's performances So you are predicting another perfect game, then?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) Honestly, people like that probably are more fans of meth and malt liquor than sports teams. winner winner.