StrangeSox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 26, 2008 -> 03:39 PM) They changes their logo to honor the 50th anniversary of Sputnik! They did it to honor Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's birthday! On April 20 (420) they changed it to some sort of trippy-looking artwork. They have done MLK day and even Halloween. Last year after some bloggers made a stink about it, they did Veterans Day. This just seems like a curious omission. So what is it supposed to be saying? They do it for plenty of other "patriotic" holidays. As they've said, their logos are usually pretty light-hearted, and Memorial Day isn't exactly a light-hearted matter.

QUOTE (Gregory Pratt @ May 25, 2008 -> 05:21 PM) Probably not. But I've explained the nickname before, and am happy to reiterate that I like women. Like I said, my suspicions about Quentin have more to do with other things than just the nickname. We'll likely never know whether or not Quentin or anyone else on the team is clean because the league and the players themselves aren't interested in cleaning up the name in theory and in practice, so I'm sorry I said anything at all. So then its fair to assume that everyone who does well in baseball is using some sort of PHD? That your suspicions have anything to do with a nickname based on his batting stance is just ridiculous.

Manufactured outrage as far as I'm concerned. Google's response from previous years: "Thank you for your note. We understand your interest in seeing a Memorial Day Google logo. If we were to commemorate this holiday, we'd want to express reverence; however, as Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature, this would be a particularly challenging design. We wouldn't want to create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful in any way. We have a long list of holidays that we'd like to celebrate in the future. We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage. We really appreciate your feedback regarding the Google logo, and please be assured that we're actively pursuing ways in which we can acknowledge Memorial Day and other such occasions in the future. Regards, The Google Team"

Bah.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) Also, why didn't the match end in a draw? They went into the final hole tied, the doctor missed his first putt and made the second, and then the judge hit his first shot. Chevy then missed his first shot and sunk the second, and the kid made his first shot. From the google: They put it behind a subscription wall, but Bill Simmons at ESPN.com addressed this question. If I recall correctly, his interpretation was that the additional bets that take place before the final shot (where Rodney Dangerfield ups the ante, and Ted Knight agrees) essentially wipe away the original bet and focus everything on the single remaining shot. Dangerfield says, "double or nothing he makes it," which doubles the original bet and focuses the bet on the final putt, not the entire game.

QUOTE (Shadows @ May 23, 2008 -> 01:06 PM) Its a movie, it doesn't have to make sense If its a good movie it shouldn't have giant plot holes/ huge gaps of logic.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 23, 2008 -> 11:52 AM) I don't think production is a good reason to suspect anyone either. But what kind of logic is this? You "don't want to play that game" that a good season raises steroid suspicion, but a nickname is enough? Are you off your rocker? Yes, yes he is.

It still doesn't make any sense for aliens to invade a planet that is literally covered in a substance that is extremely toxic to them.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 23, 2008 -> 08:50 AM) Sort of... What the report is saying is that at a price of $24/barrel, it will be profitable to recover X barrels (5.2 bil, in the average scenario) total from ANWR. Because you're taking out the easy oil first, extraction becomes more costly as you take more out (marginal cost increases). So it's not a constant cost of $24/barrel. $24/barrel is the marginal cost, the cost to extract one more barrel, after 5.2 bb have already been extracted (in the mean scenario, at least). Anyway, the takehome lesson from looking at the graph is that basically everything will be extracted at current prices. The Saudis almost certainly have lower costs, but the current price is so far above extraction costs that the difference doesn't matter much to the reasoning. It does matter as to the price impact of 1 bbl of ANWR oil or 1 bbl of Saudi oil.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 23, 2008 -> 09:36 AM) What was the price of Saudi Oil in the same time frame? About half the ANWR projection. Is that the production cost or the market price? It isn't costing the Saudis $135 to produce a barrel of oil today.

Found this: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm So the recoverable cost of ANWR oil is $24/ barrel in 1998 dollars, which is ~$31/ barrel today. Anyone know the cost of Saudi oil?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 23, 2008 -> 06:02 AM) The stories I read, and the one referenced above say 1 million per day, not 100,000 per day. At any amount, I was just saying that the economics of OPEC cutting production because someone else comes into the game don't seem to make much sense. They'd just be voluntarily giving up some of the market.

MLB's broadcasting rules and Fox's exclusivity rights are so ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2008 -> 10:24 PM) No, the oil up there would not cost nearly that much to produce and extract. Here's the one issue that isn't being noted...well, actually 2...it's a market. And a monopolistic one at that. So, what's stopping OPEC from cutting their production by 100,000 barrels per day as ANWR ramps up? And secondly, what's to stop the energy demand of the rest of the world from just pushing upwards again to consume every last drop we put out? If they cut their production based on ANWR output, then the total supply to the market remains the same as before and the price remains the same as before. Except now, they are selling 100,000 barrels less per day. It would be like Coca-Cola deciding to cut their production because Pepsi is producing more.

You also have to factor in the quality of the oil and the refining costs. The stuff from Saudi Arabia is some of the best for refining and its extremely easy to get to. You also don't have to transport it several thousand miles through a pipeline. There's an awful lot of factors that the author glosses over or is simply ignorant of. Perhaps he should go back an get that PhD in economics or oil production.

QUOTE (KevinM @ May 22, 2008 -> 09:47 AM) His LD% is 21% -- right in line with his career numbers. And those balls in play aren't LD's have been poorly-hit balls. If you are just barely making contact and rolling over on pitches, your BABIP is going to be bad. That doesn't mean you're unlucky.

We don't have any right to McCain's medical records, IMO, beyond a basic "he has a good bill of health."

QUOTE (KevinM @ May 21, 2008 -> 06:20 PM) Also -- Swisher is sporting a BABIP of .250 right now. Compare that to Sweeney's .358. What does that mean? One of them has been unlucky -- the other quite lucky. Take your pick. It's unlucky if you hit a laser right at someone. Its not unlucky if you hit weak grounders and infield pop-ups.

Oil has about doubled in price over the last year, and its up ~38% just since February 22nd. http://www.oil-price.net/index.php?lang=en

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 21, 2008 -> 04:32 PM) Obama doesn't really know s*** about economics... and I'm hoping he contrasts himself with someone who does. I feel Edwards knows even less.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 21, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) why? He takes every policy issue I have with Obama to a new level. The administration would be far, far too left economically.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 21, 2008 -> 11:23 AM) Seriosuly, Obama - Edwards is a Kickass ticket... I will not vote for Obama if Edwards is the VP.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 21, 2008 -> 09:05 AM) I think the key difference here is we would burn all the oil we would produce, we could not use all the grain we could produce. We would be using cheaper imported grain and the more expensive US grain would be rotting in silos. Tell that to the millions of people around the world who go hungry. Or the people in this country who go hungry. If we're going to be paying farmers, might as well pay them to grow something and give it away to countries in need.

The Farm Bill is absolutely terrible.

Over $130 this morning. Hooray!