StrangeSox

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 12, 2014 -> 11:57 PM) Oh man. I am scared to see how much dog poop is under all that snow in my backyard. We had my wife's brother's lab for two weeks too. Haven't picked up in like two months or more? I got out there about a month ago and got what I could, but even then there was probably already a month's worth under the snow that I couldn't see.

Why on earth do you think Obama would do that? edit: send me your contact information, I'd like to take those 3:1 odds for $1000.

I run Avast! on both of my home computers. I've had it for years without any problems.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 12, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) That has to be fake. How did it not break after hitting the ground? People have survived after hitting the ground with relatively minor injuries. Those GoPro cameras are already really rugged (they're used for filming action sports where they'll take a beating). Add to that landing in a pig pen, which probably was pretty muddy, and it's definitely possible.

My side yard is going to be a biological hazard once this snow melts.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 12, 2014 -> 11:55 AM) You must not have a dog. Ugh

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 12, 2014 -> 09:55 AM) The announcers have said like 80 times that they're working on that spot non-stop. Apparently, the fix ain't easy. It's almost like the "bad weather for the superbowl" arguments--yeah, everyone has to deal with the same crap, but it's really changing the nature of everyone's runs that they've practiced forever and it's making it more random and less about skill and execution.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 12, 2014 -> 09:56 AM) I have it on mute so I must have missed it. They built it s***ty and now cannot fix it. Awesome. They built it in a place with air temperatures that are above freezing. The other courses are seeing some of the same problems where once it gets later in the day, the snow is just turning to slush. I know they were talking about it in the women's slopestyle as well.

That would be a good point if NBC wasn't putting their major coverage on their main channel

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Feb 11, 2014 -> 05:17 PM) You're a total outlier. The average viewer wouldn't really pick up on that. I work in TV and have edited for years and I was so entirely consumed and enthralled by the scene that I didn't even realize it was continuous until someone brought it up to me the next day. Isn't it also possible that part of what makes a scene like that so consuming and enthralling is the way it's shot continuously like that, even if you're not consciously aware of it? I'm sure there's things going on all the time with editing, camera work and direction that I'm not conscious of but that really do make the scene more enjoyable.

VPN exists, though, so there's always that. BBC's coverage of the Olympics is good!

US fails to make the podium in the men's snowboard halfpipe

he's calling you old

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) Well, what I'm thinking of is a large-scale effort to get people to vote 3rd party in the 2014 Congressional elections. In 2012, third parties got 3.6% of the vote. If an organized effort got that total up into the 10-15% range, would that be enough to make the big parties take notice? There are an awful lot of safe districts where people could vote for 3rd party candidates as a statement of dissastisfaction with the current system without having a chance at affecting the outcome. Protest votes in safe states or districts won't mean a thing. Republicans have been responding very strongly to primary challenges from their conservative base lately. They don't want to lose their seats, and those represent legitimate threats. 10% of people voting for some third party in a safe district won't matter because they have no reason to be concerned about it. There's also the problem of coming up with a coalition of 10-15% of the population that is dissatisfied with the current parties for similar reasons. Short of something like what caused the collapse of the Whigs in the 1850's, there isn't really an opportunity for a third major party to come into existence with how our elections are structured. You have to think of it in game theory terms. If you have say three or four parties getting a grand total of 10-15% of the vote, none of them individually matter at all. Without proportional representation, you get nothing for perpetually being in third place. You could have a chance at occasional success for the Presidency with a third party, but it can't really happen for Congress. Neither you or I may like the D's or R's all that much, but I'm sure they're for very, very different reasons and I'd much rather have Democratic policies I'm not in love with over Republican policies. If I make a protest vote for a left-liberal third party candidate and so do enough other people in my district, all that means is that I'm making it easier for Republican policies to be implemented. edit: things can be different at the local level, of course. Seattle recently elected an open Socialist to their city council.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) I understand that actually electing third party candidates is almost impossible, but how much of the vote would they need to get to start having an influence on the two major parties? Enough so that somebody actually loses office. Even then, the structure of our government virtually guarantees domination by two parties. We don't have a parliamentary system where various parties need to form coalition governments. We also don't have proportional representation. Coming in second place with say 49% in every race means you get zero seats and no representation. Splintering the party that's closest to your own values, even if they aren't all that close, only strengthens the other party that much more. If a lot of the hardline tea party types who cast anyone to the left of Cruz as a RINO really would just sit home instead of voting for less-than-ideal Republican candidates, the end result is basically just complete Democratic domination. On the flip side we have Naderites playing a large role in Bush becoming president in 2000 instead of Gore. How could that be a preferential outcome for anyone who supported Nader's policies? eta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law

Or it could be that there are real legitimate and deep disagreements over both the proper size/scope of public policy and what that policy should be!

Anyone have any opinions on Wilmot vs. Alpine Valley for skiing? edit: just looking for somewhere close to go to get used to a set of skis again before heading to Colorado, I know they're both small hills at best but I've never been to Wilmot.

Also for those of you with Netflix, House of Cards Season 2 will be released next Friday.

Parks & Rec has been pretty mediocre this year.

If anyone wants to watch the Opening Ceremonies live, http://deadspin.com/how-to-watch-the-sochi...live-1517132891

Deadspin attempts to compile the records of every black QB to ever be drafted by or make the roster of an NFL team

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 7, 2014 -> 08:12 AM) Before these Olympics, did you ever expect to hear Bob Costas say "p**** Riot"? Here's Bob Costas Saying "p**** Riot" Over And Over edit: of course the Soxtalk "bad words" filter screws up that link

IIRC mine was about $200, this is it

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 07:22 PM) When did the Winter X Games merge with the Olympics? This snowboarding stuff is cool, but does it really merit Olympic medals? Ice shuffleboard fan says what