FlaSoxxJim

damn that was rough.

convert it to Quicktime.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:04 PM) :notworthy

Every time I see him I swear I'm looking at Emperor Palpatine.

We've had this conversation here before. What I took home from it the last time around is that many people who fall over themselves protecting the symbol of our nation from being trod upon are happy to sit idly while the actual principles on which the nation was founded on are being trod upon by the people in charge. It would be refreshing to see as much outrage over administration-sanctioned detention of people for years on end without charges being brought, secret rendition flights to black sites where torture is the norm and the goal, illegal wiretaps, etc. . . But that is asking too much. Protect the flag, but to hell with what we thought it stood for.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:38 AM) You CAN prove evolution. It has held up after countless new discoveries. It is the foundation of modern biology. DNA and genetic information, something not known about when evolution was first realized, fit right in with it.rue That's all true except for the part about provng evolution. Scientists aren't in the buisness of "proving" anything, and that is why they speak in terms of confidence levels when they report their findings. That said, the neodarwinian theory of evolution through randon mutation and natural selection of acquired traits over time continues to be supported by growing mountains of supporting evidence. With every new tool that allows a look at phylogenetic relatedness of species at the molecular level, the already overwhelming case for evolution gets stronger. So much so that there really is no "controversy" as far as 99+% of the biological academic community is concerned. The only real controversy is that caused by non-scientists with zero real understanding of what the theory actually says who are all fired up about letting you know that they "didn't come from no damn monkey". And, of course the theory never says they did, but they are either unable to grasp thst or else simply refuse to do so.

QUOTE (Heartattack19 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) It always amazes me that these successful businesses do not own their locations, but i guess the start up costs are so high that it is prohibitive to buy the land outright. And who knew that Goose Island itself (the island) would become popular, it was all industrial and run down for the longest time. Now these landlords will have a huge empty space with no tenants. That's for sure, and I hope it satys urented for a couple of years and it bites them on their greedy a$$.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) Michael Sweet from Stryper is singing for Boston on this tour. I've heard him try to sing Boston songs, and it ain't good. I had a friend who would go to that fest every year, but I never went so I can't tell you if it's worth it or not. sweet jeebus, that'll be bad.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 01:06 AM) Oh that's easy to interpret. "You ever drink a Bailey's out of a shoe?" It's when people start going "hasdf JKSik hadhll hosssss mcuh to tdirjkj to inhghgt....................LIKE 1322234 KKKKKKKKKKKKKK SHOTSTS ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!1!!11111" that it begins to get difficult to understand. Clearly I'm not drinking enough.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 11:29 PM) I was just going to say, the "pose" on the statue should be him with a huge lead off of 1st base, ready to somehow score on a 1 out gapper by Herbert Perry. Nah, the pose should be him doing a mock Sam-ME bunny hop or blowing kisses into the stands after putting one out of the park on the wrong side of town. Good times.

I loved all 4 of the jerseys, and I'm sad to hear the vests got retired. I had no idea. I think the black tops look great and I agree we'll start seeing them less as the weather warms up. There was nothing better than seeing the black alternate unis come out when the team needed to turn a losing streak around. Badass fo' sure.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 11:44 PM) mYou very drink Abilailey's out fo a shoe? :blink: I'm pretty sure that's not a language I've ever seen. But just to be safe, I'll have one of what you're having.

How the f*** is Boston touring now that Brad Delp is dead?? Call it a career already. Eau Claire was the home of one of the only all-malt beers brewed in the US back in the mid to late 80s. It cost about twice as much to brew as typical adjunct beers and nobody back then knew what a gem they had and so the operation folded just befor the American craft beer movement took off. Just behind to the closing of Celis and New Albion, I think that is right up there in the ranking of modern American brewery tragedies.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Maybe I'm wrong, but I just think having that much money has an effect on some people. I am soooo willing to take that chance if someone would just give me the $hitload of money I need to do the experiment right.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 08:51 PM) It traveled well out of its natural habitat. And if it were a pet, then its better off dead anyways since it'd be useless in the wild. Cougars don't belong in an urban setting, I'll grant you. But, while an urbanized area may not be a natural habitat, the Midwest certainly is part of the historic range which would have included all of the contiguous United States. We have a very different situation down here, where we have a critically endangered small population of cougar subspecies, aka, the Florida panther that managed to hold out while the rest of the eastern US populations were extirpated. Here, when a panther turns up on the fringe of an urbanized setting it's something that makes the news and you'll end up going to prison if you willfully injure it. Again, the situations are very different, and as sad as it is i'm not faulting the judgement of the police. But it's pretty cool that we're seeing increased sightings – albeit scattered and anecdotal in most cases – in the Midwest.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) That was a coyote. They've been in the area for a while. Different animal. Right you are. They are remarkably similar in appearance, but I put together a quick visual guide for on telling them apart: The big giveaway is the nose. If the nose is red, you're looking at a wolf. If the nose is black, y'er talking coyote. The different diets aid in positive identification as well. Wolves consume primarily sheep, if they can get past the sheepdog, whereas coyotes are amazingly persistent in trying to pursue and capture roadrunners. Neither species seems to be particularly good at being a predator, and they seem to spend most of their time starving and being thwarted by their would-be dinner. A final difference is in vocalization ability, with the wolf producing short, simple, but fully intelligible vocalizations like, "Mornin', Sam." The coyote, on the other hand, almost never vocalizes, instead opting to hold up signs that say things like, "YIKES!", when they find themselves in an alarming situation. Interestingly, both species do a lot of shopping through the ACME mail order products company. It is not yet known if this is evidence of shared common ancestry or convergent behavioral evolution.

QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 04:13 PM) Say what you will about the movie, the central conflict here is that schools are funded by tax dollars in this country and only 12% of the population want an evolution-only curiculum. 55 % want all three of ID, creationism, and evolution taught while 23% want creationism only. Given who is paying for the schools, people of faith can make a strong case that creationism and ID should be taught alongside evolution and if secularists have a problem with that, they can always home school. Or we can do away with public funding of education. It's a hard argument to refute. No it's not hard to refute. Church/state separation rightly keeps teachers from disguising their personal religious beliefs and passing it off as science. If the fundamentalists have a problem with that, they can always home school or go to the denominational school of their choice.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 02:06 PM) Technically, you would need to purchase a copy somewhere, or obtain permission from whoever created the original one to make a copy. Not sure if you could work up a 'fair use' claim on a poster. Otherwise it would be theft. Blah blah blah. . . What, do you run a print shop or something??

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) And like Michael Moore uses in every one of his films right? Or Al Gore in his? I grant you that this is not going to be a scientific documentary, but it should have as much clout as other documentaries put on the big screen - i.e. viewers are smart enough to realize that they are merely introducing a topic for discussion and obviously have an agenda for doing so, so the discussion will be weighted accordingly. It's up to individuals to take that and go find their own facts and own opinions about it. I don't care to persuade anyone not to see the film. In fact, the website says they'll give school groups $5-10 a head to see it as a group, so I think it would be a hoot to take a faculty field trip to see it on the film company's dime. I know that one of the principles in the film believes she was passed up for tenure because of her beliefs, but there is no evidence for that and a lot of tenure track faculty in her department are passed up for academic reasons. I'm sure the other folks will have their own axes to grind with 'Big Science' as well. But here's the thing about Big Science; it's where the majority of investigators fall because the accumulated weight of evidence directs them there. Sure, there are always going to be minority dissenting viewpoints, and it’s wicked cool when those dissenters are vindicated as new evidence begins to lend credence to ideas that were previously considered out of the mainstream. But this doesn’t describe the creationists/ID proponents or whatever they are called at the moment. They are the biological equivalent of the flat-earthers, and no amount of unfounded theories in support of an untestable divine agent is going to change the fact that they are on the side of ‘Small Science’ for a reason.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 01:36 PM) I'm hijacking this thread. Flaxx--have you read any evolutionary Psychology (or Sociobiology, though they're rather different--at least according to evopsychs). Any thoughts on those behavioral type theories of evolution? Sure. Popular authors like Dawkins and Pinker devote a good deal of time to evolutionary psychology. Other than the fact that hypotheses proposing present-day human behaviors as adaptive outcomes of human evolution are near-impossible to actually test, I think this is every bit as valid a field as any other branch of ethology. If the vertebrate eye and the mammalian immune system are seen as the functional products of natural selection, then certainly the human capacity for language, memory, perception, etc., should also be viewed this way. I agree to a point that fields like this are sort of at the nexus of 'hard science' and 'soft science', but human adaptations didn't accumulate on accident and this seems an entirely reasonable way to look at human behavior within a meaningful evolutionary context.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 12:11 PM) Another problem that anti-evolutionists have is that they often confuse cosmology (formation of the universe) and abiogenesis (formation of life from non-life) with evolution. I'm not sure if this movie does that, but I really can't find much information on their website about the actual content of the film. Yes, the film is certainly going to conflate these very different fields - you can tell that from the ads running for it on Comedy Central. As far as hearing what the main focal figures of the film have to say, keep in mind that three of the four key figures have existing ties to Intelligent Design advocacy groups like Discovery Institute and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. So, basically, we should expect the same kind of fringe scientists trotted out to bolster up ID as we saw when Big Tobacco paid some fringe scientists to trot them out and tell us all to smoke up and not worry about cancer and lung disease.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 10:48 AM) He also claims in this movie that evolution leads to Nazism. Yes he does, which gives the film less than zero academic credability.

QUOTE (mreye @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) Screw the procrastinators! I agree. Let's eventually stage a protest.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) 40% is still too high, even if you are talking all defense spending. Probably more like 22%. I think you're check box would end up screwing you in the end. Think of all the things someone like me would be 'checking' out of. especially if i filed my taxes after a few beers. Well, I'm not suggesting you get a checkbox too. 40% was the number from a study that was put out on the air this morning before Amy Goodman interviewed Rep. Jan Schakowsky before this morning's Tax Day press conference in DC. But she's a lefty no-goodnik so I'm sure her number is inflated.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) Iraq is a big money pit. But it's no where near 60% the federal budget. You're right, realistically it is only around 40%. I'd rather see the military portion of my tax money go to health care and education. I keep looking for that check box on the 1040, but no dice.