iamshack

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 07:55 AM) Except Peavy doesn't have a big contract Ugh...maybe you should actually read the article...or see my post above.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 17, 2013 -> 07:52 AM) New logo for a content management / collaboration software product. Ahh...well in that case you should bastardize the logo for Kappa soccer

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 07:47 AM) Local fan? Yes. Well-written? I disagree Yeah, I am pretty sure that kid is a Dodgers fan... And the article itself is well-written...the opinions themselves, well those are obviously very Dodger-friendly...

Steve, Maybe it would help if you would elaborate on the project a bit?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 07:42 AM) Greinke: $19 mil Becket : $15.75 mil Lilly: $12 mil Billingsley: $11 mil Kershaw: $11 mil But Jake Peavy at $14 mil is high-priced He didn't exactly say Peavy was high-priced or had a bad contract...he was insinuating that the White Sox would have no use for it if they remain in last place, and that the Dodgers, with their apparent ability to continue to take on big contracts, would have an edge in the trade negotiations.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 06:56 AM) That Yahoo Contributor Network is really ruining their reputation. They have some great writers like Passan & Wetzel, but then they allow stuff like this to be posted as actual "news". Our own Jake writes for them and does a really nice job. The articles are to be taken for what they are...the insights of well-written local fans...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) Well, to be fair, a lot of deals for good players have gone down recently with s*** going back. And they do have that Charlotte pick. I mean, Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, and some bad picks for James Harden! The pick was the main thing he brought up when discussing assets for Love.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 16, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) I'll science your face. I've always wondered what BAC I'm at even when it has nothing to do with driving. Like, what does .08 feel like? What does .02? What does .15 feel like? Sometimes I wish I had a breathalyzer around just to be like "hmm, didn't know that's what my BAC is at this point" They do sell them...,

QUOTE (Jake @ May 16, 2013 -> 02:15 PM) This was a good season for the Bulls. A lot of fun to watch, too. This team has more heart without Derrick. Having Derrick Rose on your team is great, but I hope we can take the lessons learned and continue playing a team game. Too often, offensively, it was just everyone watching Derrick dribble. Run an offense and take advantage of everybody's talents. Honestly, I am not sure we are much better against the Heat in particular, with Derrick playing. Not saying he doesn't make us better, but there were a lot of times during that '11 series when I questioned whether he was a big improvement considering the way LeBron shuts him down.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 16, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) If this post were a person, I'd hump it Aww come on...as if that has stopped you before...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:27 AM) Friedell with his annual "yeah but the Bulls still aren't good enough" column. http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bulls/post...-cant-beat-heat I think that's partly true, but in games 3 and 5 of this series (in which Miami was playing 3rd string starters), the Bulls got a decent lead and then Thibs decided to play defense instead of maintaining the offense. It was the same f'n script - get up by 6-8, throw in Taj and take out Marco and Boozer, and watch the lead get pissed away because the Bulls have no offensive threat on the floor other than Nate. The Bulls don't have Lebron, that's the real difference. They don't get the luxury of being able to commit offensive fouls on every drive and then get the reach/block/hack foul on the defense to get to the line. That's the real difference. I'm not sure what GarPax can do about that, even if they were able to sign another superstar. The Thunder suffered from the same problem last year. He was on Cowherd this morning advocating they go after Kevin Love.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) I'm sure there might be small ways to improve it, but yeah, I think the current set up is about as good as we're going to get. I like Shack's idea of having devices in cars, but that's probably not workable right now. Penalties are harsh enough as-is. Making them harsher won't change the behavior. And Government Cab Company isn't feasible for the majority of the country. I think it would be workable if instead of allowing these bs "treatment" companies to charge $850 to do nothing, we make the offenders get the devices installed.

QUOTE (MEANS @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) or you only ride a bike, like the 40 year old virgin You can actually get pulled over for this too I think

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:03 AM) I didn't realize how good Peavy has been this year. If the Sox are out of it come the trade deadline, does he get traded? And if so, what kind of return could he get? Did you hang up and listen for your answer?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:49 AM) One downside is that making these things work doesn't appear to be cheap. One brief check finds that the cost of operating one of those ignition interlocks for 1 year is on the order of $1000-$2000. Maybe they'd get cheaper if they were mandated on every vehicle, but there are a variety of safety devices we don't mandate in vehicles because of costs on that level. For 250 million cars, that's a cost of a couple hundred billion dollars. The costs associated with DUI per year are on the order of $100 billion from this estimate...so maybe it works out, but either way, that's not a cheap step. Well, at the very least, you could make anyone who's ever had a dui violation use one for the rest of their life...I believe that is a better solution than making it difficult for them to be a productive citizen by fining them and suspending their license.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:46 AM) I'm just saying, I hate when people talk about alcohol like it's this uncontrollable product that's inherently dangerous. Individuals have all the power over alcohol. YOU choose where you drink, YOU choose how much you drink, etc. Well, I know how stubborn you are, so I won't invest too much time trying to convince you, but you know full-well that is nonsense. You should go work for the tobacco companies

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:43 AM) If you use alcohol properly - i.e., don't drink until you're black out drunk and then drive - and you do so in an appropriate place, there's no danger even if you become intoxicated. It's a safe product to use. I was intoxicated last night in my home watching the Bulls/Hawks and I didn't kill anyone. I can't believe you're an attorney and you would make this argument...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:41 AM) Do the businesses also provide transportation TO their locations? It's simply an unrealistic idea. It's a lot more realistic than expecting people to not drink and drive because of fines and suspensions.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:41 AM) How does this prevent someone else from blowing for the driver? I mentioned this earlier...it certainly isn't foolproof...but maybe science has a solution for this...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:40 AM) I'm more thinking about old cars. It can be done in all new cars from this date forward, but it could take 20+ years to get all the old cars off the road. It would be tough to make every single person bring in every single car in to get it installed. People with drinking problems would search for and pay money for cars without the device too. Hah...this is true! Maybe they could make some kind of aftermarket device that is required...

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:39 AM) It's easy to do to the cars, but it's the legal battle that would be tough. Why should somebody who's never had a drink in their life have to blow into a device everytime they want to start their car? Because driving is a privilege, not a right. For the same reason they have to take driver's ed, and renew their license all the time, and obey traffic laws in general...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:36 AM) Even if it does, so long as you do it at a place where you intend to stay a while, it's perfectly safe. ?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:33 AM) I agree with your idea of the breathalyzer ignition lock devices on all cars. However, implemntation of that doesn't seem very feasible in the near future. Why not? Automakers are putting all kinds of stuff in cars...why can't they do this?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:31 AM) I know what you're getting at, but you're deflecting blame of the person making a bad decision to the alcohol itself. "Oh, well after 4 beers my mind was kind of gone SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING." Bulls***, you made a conscious choice and now you deal with it. The effects of alcohol is not a justification for driving drunk. Alcohol is like anything else that's dangerous - when used properly, it's perfectly fine. When you mix is morons that make dumb choices (we've all done it and realize we're morons when we do it) the blame is on us, not alcohol. The problem with that logic is that when it is used properly, it intoxicates you...which inhibits your ability to do most things as well as you would without it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:27 AM) People are never going to stop driving drunk. People got drunk during prohibition. Acting like any laws put in place will stop the repeat offenders is just ignorant. That's why he's saying that the way to make it less of a safety issue isn't to just keeping jacking up the fines and suspensions.