Texsox

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 04:29 PM) The more nudity the better. Please do not post that in the Rosie thread

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 04:30 PM) If nothing else, remember, we're dealing with a nation where somewhere between 15 and 20% of the population has become refugees...over 10% of which has already fled the country. I can't imagine a way to get an actual randomized sample when those are the sorts of issues you have to overcome. Exactly, but we can't lower the bar. We have to accept it is not a representative sample and treat it as such. Plus, self reporting is unreliable.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) The minimum salary in MLB is lucrative as is. I don't need to mention what an average paid player earns. Fact is, they don't deserve that type of money. If they want keep getting that kind of money, pee in a cup every once and awhile and show them some blood. I have a hard time equating salary with a loss in rights. If there was some cause I can see. In the real world, why ask your 60 year old accountant who has never missed a day of work in twenty years, and no one has seen him take even a sip of beer, for a blood test*? * True story by the way. After a merger the new parent company came in and hit us with random tests. Let's just say some of the tests were more random than others.

Linkage

OS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two decades after a nude photo scandal helped cost a Miss America her title, Americans may be adopting a more ho-hum attitude toward people who bare it all for the cameras. Some experts say the Internet and more explicit TV are fostering a more relaxed response by Americans to public displays of bare flesh, even if many people profess to be more conservative. Take, for example, the muted reaction to nude photos of 18-year-old Vanessa Hudgens, the star of Walt Disney Co.'s squeaky clean "High School Musical" franchise, One day after the photos surfaced on the Web last Thursday, Hudgens issued an apology and family friendly Walt Disney Co. said it would continue negotiating her appearance in the third installment of the hugely popular series, one of the most popular programs in U.S. cable TV history. While some expressed outrage, many fans pledged support on her MySpace page at http://www.myspace.com/vanessahudgens. Some lashed out at her critics. "Quit moaning and if you have any kind of decent filtering on the computer, kids aren't going to see it," wrote one poster on a media blog Web site at http://acemanonline.wordpress.com. It's a far cry from the scandal in 1984 when Vanessa Williams, the first black woman named as Miss America, resigned after nude photos surfaced of her and another female model. "I do think that general attitudes about nudity are becoming more relaxed, but these changes take time, which is why there's still mixed responses," said Paul Levinson, communication and media professor at Fordham University. Continued...

Linked

From a list I am on.

I have really mixed feeling on this. I oppose random searches, without some cause, in the workplace. Then I wonder if a MLB Ballpark is a usual workplace. If the cops can not open up your closet without a probable cause, why should we allow someone to open up your vein? But I don't see anyway other than drug checks to assure compliance.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 03:56 PM) Dude...when it winds up involving actual blood, that's a bad thing.

Would anyone trade the last ten years of Sox results with the Twin's results? I wouldn't. We see what he did in the free agent market the last two seasons. I'm not that impressed. So multiply those acquisitions ten fold with more money. Meh. I'm not saying KW is better, just saying I don't think he's the second coming where an organization should dump everything and follow. Perhaps if he had put together a team that won it all, then maybe . . .

I usually feel all warm and cozy when the President speaks. Then twenty seconds later the crap begins. I'll take an evening of loving my President and country and read the crap in the morning.

I love the internet. I might never have known this http://ibscrohns.about.com/cs/otherdiseases/a/greenstool.htm I also learned that Lucky Charms is notorious for causing this. Cool! Another reason to eat a bowl. I wonder if there are any other colors I can shoot for.

I'm just going to guess that the CIA has at least the same tools as this guy, perhaps more. I am also going to assume that the CIA employs people just as smart.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Not to pick a fight with you but come on....they didn't ask to be invaded and then occupied for 4+ years. And if someone did ask, would we go, invest billions of dollars, and thousands of lives? No, we go where it makes sense for American interests. I'm sorry it sucks to be them. I'm sorry if they think we should be there ten days or ten years. We'll answer to America's needs first.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 02:36 PM) I think polls are useful, when you have all the information. One thing I agree with, in terms of the point SS2K5 was making, is that you can pull numbers out of polls to try to shift the appearance of the results. Here is a novel idea - when a poll comes out, just state the facts. Give people the actual, statistical results. Instead, we get a few hard numbers from the poll, surrounded by "expert analysis" that is usually nothing more than fluff and dumbing down of the results. If they had any scientific validity, I might as well. But these have no reliability, no validity. And giving the people the stats is nice on the surface, and we could require everyone to take statistics in High School so they could analyze the statistics. But that ain't going to happen. What we have is a bunch of people giving their opinion. Did everyone in the population have an equal chance of being polled? That's step one. I doubt it in this case.

Let me try another explanation. I know what is in my brain, isn't that controversial. There is a cost per customer served. Companies figure this out all the time. Costs generally go up the longer you are servicing someone. So lets arrive at a cost per minute to service someone. Do we all agree we can determine the cost per person served? Now let's take the time lost, if any, when someone can't fully grasp the language as effectively as they could in their own language. So even if they can read and write English, they may be quicker in Spanish. Add up those cost savings, multiply it by the number of people being served and see the potential savings. Can we agree that time is money? Paying someone by the hour to spend 30 minutes is more expensive then having them spend 15 minutes. Then look at the price of the technology, translations, eliminating the form, whatever, in solving the problem. The difference determines what should be done. Does that make sense? Given the illiterate example, the cost savings would probably never surpass the cost to solve the problem. Making forms available in braille, might.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) You won't wait less - you will wait more, while various forms and rules are translated, or people struggle with it, and there are more forms to sift through, and someone else's language isn't on there, etc. Just like hammerhead said earlier. If you expect people to speak English, then not only do we wait less in line, but we all pay less in taxes. I am waiting now for someone to suggest we have "readers" at all government facilities to tell people what forms say, in case they are illiterate. Because it makes exactly the same sense as what is being suggested here. The majority of people should not have to pay extra money and wait longer in line because the minority refuse to learn English. If they both happen to know Spanish, great, it makes no difference to me. But to put that immense cost on the government is just an incredibly inefficient idea. Exactly Yep, that's what we have now. Let's do it once for the popular languages. Problem solved, or at least made better. If 20 or 30% of the population needed it, then it might just be the right thing to do. Now, I believe it is too small of a need. Exactly. Having people do the same translations, over and over again while others wait, is inefficient. Especially for millions and millions of people. And since most of these are already done, I think keeping them makes more sense than throwing them away with an English only ban. I believe our government should have an open mind and look for efficient ways. If translating to Spanish is cost effective, go for it. Let them assimilate on their own time. If it costs $1,000,00 to translate and saves $3,000,000 go for it. If it costs $1,000,000 and saves $100,000 then don't. Currently with our population it may begin to make economic sense for Spanish, but not for illiterates.

And in an ideal world that is what will happen. Everyone will learn enough English in a week to navigate the forms. But in the real world, it takes time to learn a language. Some people will never trust there second language. Would you trust your High School French while filling out a tourist application? Driver's License? You would probably bring a friend to help translate. That is why I appreciate that Mexico has most of their work and temp immigration forms in English as well as Spanish. But hey, they can afford it, they are a rich country. What happens when people wait longer, they need more space. They need more parking spaces, chairs, bathrooms, clerks. They need more time off work. Then double it when they bring a translator. It's easy to demand that an adult learn English well enough to fill out government forms. What grade level are they written at? It's another to understand that language acquisition basically peaks at 10 years old and it gets much tougher after that. Reality check. If you had 1% needing this, it is probably a waste. If you had 99% needing this, it is an obvious benefit. There is a cross over point. Is it 50%? Possibly, my guess it is less. Why did we translate many of these forms to computer based? Because anytime you are repeating the same step over and over again it is more efficient to automate it. Think of this the same way. If tens of thousand of clerks will look at Name and translate nombre to hundreds of thousands of customers, why not do it one time and be done? BTW, you do know that most of this has already been done? I applaud those that believe we can afford to keep people in lines if it will help the immigrant to assimilate. I am all for that. I just think our government should strive for lower costs with better service. Same as private business. Automating processes, like translating forms, is one way. A careful analysis should be done and if the results say translating a form is cheaper, then we should, if it is more expensive, we should not. So that would probably mean it makes sense to do Spanish, but not French or Greek.

That is why these polls should receive no serious consideration. We can start picking apart this and make everything look good, or bad. Couple of points: The Iraqi public better start caring about what we think, I could care less what they think. Last I looked we're footing the bill and I see a lot more made in America weapons and s*** there. So basically, I don't really care about a poll where Iraqis self report their "feelings". Here's a feeling for you, how about you sell us really cheap oil? I might be in favor of sticking around and keeping Syria, Iran, and Saudia Arabia, countries you think are try to harm you, off your asses, if I was filling up with $1 petrol.

There is a thread already started in the Diamond

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:48 PM) I just don't get how a guy like Fossett goes out without a flight plan. If he was injured but still alive, time would be of the essence. If they knew where he was flying, they could have found him a lot faster. He was Scouting an area, I'm not certain how exact it would have been. But I agree. That is rule #1 in any outdoor activity

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) Maybe. But does he have a ring? Great Post. Would I trade the last 7 seasons with Minny? No

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:31 PM) As I recall, when Powell flirted with running in 92 or 96 (I forget which), even though he looked like an early favorite, he dropped out because his wife told him she would leave if he ran. IIRC there was also some personal safety issues. Unlike some, I actually like him more after he served in the West Wing.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) So if Hillary wins the Presidency, God help us all, will she take Ted Stevens list of who she should nominate for a key position? No, the list would be very different. That tells me he has already moved towards the right in his picks. Isn't that a good thing? And if Congress was under GOP leadership the lists would be different. I don't see a problem. Do you?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) sounds like this is going to end up with "tragedy" written all over it. At least he went out doing what he loved.. crashing into the ground?