that's unfortunate, but at least the interest is there on both sides
- Member for
- 6 years 41 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 hours 34 min ago||It did indeed. GM had some||
It did indeed. GM had some really forgettable clunkers during that time. Namely everything with "Geo" on it. And I once had a driving school Chevy Corsica plop its full load of antifreeze onto the parking lot surface after nothing more strenuous than driving range practice.
But when they had a good design, they rode it long and hard and the result was some terrific cars. The design for the 3800 engine went back to the '60s and that Olds wagon was virtually unchanged from 1982, both inside and out. Could you imagine if today they still sold, for example, the 2002 Chevy Malibu? If they'd never put a diesel in the early versions they might've sold millions of those Cutlasses.
|6 hours 2 min ago||Because all possible||
Because all possible scenarios, where the NBA keeps its 19-year age limit and the NCAA institutes freshman ineligibility, are bad for the NBA.
Players might bolt for the league after never playing a game in college. Tough to scout them that way.
Or they might skip college and go to Europe, where Brandon Jennings was paid $1 million to, as Jennings himself put it, play D and take open shots. And sometimes not get off the bench at all. Tough to scout them that way, too, and more expensive to boot.
Or they might stay in college two years, which is the best case for the NBA but makes them wait another year to draft a player they would've had a year ago.....but if they have to wait two years, surely they'd prefer the players be playing during both of them.
The NBA put a lot of political capital into that rule during CBA negotiations, because having high school players enter the draft and then bomb and/or take years to develop was hurting the league. It's tough for them to babysit a guy fresh out of high school. Just that one transition year in college is big for one's maturity. It might seem like they have other fish to fry, but that rule is important to them. The NCAA would prefer to either lose the rule or make it two years so they don't look like a stopover.
|6 hours 50 min ago||For some reason he went back||
For some reason he went back to the dugout to find out if it was worth reviewing. Dumb decision. Waiting for your coaches to bust out the DVR is a 3rd-inning move, not a 9th-inning move.
|6 hours 53 min ago||Those cars were great for new||
Those cars were great for new drivers to have, but they were not great for new drivers to learn on and then drive something else. The street cars in my driving school were all Cutlass Cieras, something like '92 or '93. They had gas pedals that you really had to mash down to make the car move. So of course, the first time driving something different, mash down the gas pedal was exactly what I did. Mom's minivan never moved so damn quick.
|7 hours 2 min ago||This is not actually my old||
This is not actually my old car, but it's the spitting image right down to the color and the wheels. Bigger inside than it looks on the outside. Hauled all my worldly possessions to and from college with room to spare. Roof rack, useful for getting my "new" couch from the Salvation Army to my house. And those old GM V6's were incredibly underrated. With cruise control on the whole time and a decent downhill stretch, I could coax 30 mpg out of this thing. More normal conditions, 25 or 26. Six years of ownership between 60 and 110K miles and the only thing that ever went wrong was a seized-up serpentine belt tensioner, a $30 fix. I'm convinced the car would disintegrate before the engine stopped running.
|12 hours 45 min ago||I'm not convinced this isn't||
I'm not convinced this isn't a ploy - an awkward one, but a ploy nonetheless - to try and get the NBA to move the 19-year-old age limit one way or the other.
|18 hours 5 min ago||We definitely haven't gone||
We definitely haven't gone through two head coaches and lost a whole bunch of bowl games and missed some others and driven out one head coach with infighting and fake newspaper stories and had another head coach put a concussed player on the field and had to give away free tickets to keep the 100,000 streak going because the AD was a soulless corporate buffoon remaking the program in his own image until he was torch-and-pitchforked out of town. Nope, nothing like that.
|1 day 6 hours ago||I wish I could ever find the||
I wish I could ever find the one from 2002 where Pav passed the puck to himself off a defender's skate, then through the guy's legs to a teammate crashing the net who finished off the play with a goal. I watched that happen and immediately got up and offered a 2nd-round pick for Datsyuk in the keeper fantasy hockey league I'm in. Pavel's still on my team.
|1 day 13 hours ago||That is not the Dave||
That is not the Dave Brandon-approved M. This place is just going to shit without his leadership.
|2 days 14 hours ago||Truthfully, the idea isn't||
Truthfully, the idea isn't even good. If the technology for solar roadways becomes cheaper, it's safe to assume regular solar cells are also becoming cheaper. A solar roadway cell will always be more expensive than an ordinary one because of the engineering required to make it durable enough to handle traffic, whether it's semi trucks or just bicycles. So you have both a more expensive road (which requires total replacement instead of just patching any time it needs repair) and a more expensive solar cell.
Solar roads are basically the wrong answer to a question nobody asked. Opportunity costs make them a really horrible, wasteful idea.
|2 days 15 hours ago||Why install a solar-roadway||
Why install a solar-roadway parking lot, though? Why not just cover a parking lot with carports that have solar cells on top? It would be cheaper to install, cheaper to maintain, it wouldn't reduce the generaion capacity if cars actually use the lot, and it wouldn't be susceptible to the freeze-thaw cycle. It makes literally no sense to install solar panels in the parking lot roadway itself.
A solar road is one of the most utterly pointless ideas ever hatched. The idea has been thoroughly fisked in a couple articles that are floating around out there.
|2 days 17 hours ago||Other actual lawyers have||
Other actual lawyers have covered this premeditation thing, but I thought I'd also add that when you drive someone to an isolated location where nobody else is around, and you kill them there, premeditation is very easy to establish.
|2 days 17 hours ago||Anyone who says football||
Anyone who says football would be safer without helmets is forgetting how many people died playing football before them. Literally about a dozen players a year, just in college, to say nothing of high school players. Football at the turn of the 20th century was literally killing people left and right. Sometimes multiple players died on the same day. All sorts of nasty brain injuries which sometimes saw players extracting themselves from a pile-up only to find a dead guy on the bottom.
|3 days 13 hours ago||They do indeed, but Maryland||
They do indeed, but Maryland asshattery isn't limited to rivals. My brother's a Purdue grad, so some years ago we went to a Purdue-Maryland bowl game, and even in Purdue gear we got the full Maryland-fan experience. Best part was probably the 50-something alums sitting near us who spoke in purposely loud passive-aggressive tones to each other - and kept looking our way to see if we noticed - about what a worthless place Purdue must be.
I'm curious to see what the Michigan-fan experience will be this fall. Not good, I predict. Maryland had the same burn-all-the-couches reputation in the ACC that Sparty has in the B1G. My cousin is a Duke alum and once I saw some of the cheer guidelines they pass out at Cameron. Inside info on opposing players to taunt them with, that kind of thing. At the bottom there's a reminder - "NO PROFANITY - WE ARE NOT MARYLAND."
|3 days 17 hours ago||I mean, on the other hand,||
I mean, on the other hand, the Lions didn't hire a GM who had "destroyed an entire league" on his resume.
|3 days 17 hours ago||They filled his house with||
They filled his house with popcorn because they couldn't fill his car with popcorn, which is normally what they do.
|3 days 18 hours ago||You can't see it from that||
You can't see it from that angle, but the near side has a bit of an overhang.
|3 days 18 hours ago||The Lions aren't really that||
The Lions aren't really that bad of an organization. Really all they do is lose. Other clubs treat their fans much worse and make much dumber moves. Off-field stuff has to count too. Gotta put the Browns below them. The Marlins, no doubt. The Knicks for sure. The Maple Leafs. The 49ers are certainly on their way. Lions might be in the bottom third, but there are some really badly-run teams out there that let the Lions off the hook.
|5 days 6 hours ago||I'm going to do my best to||
I'm going to do my best to avoid this show this season. Because from what I hear it spills over into the sixth book, which I don't want spoiled for me. If I'm wrong, someone go ahead and correct me ASAP.
|6 days 8 hours ago||The police make arrests and||
The police make arrests and their investigation goes as far as finding out who to arrest. When people saw "law enforcement should handle it" they also mean the courts, which universities aren't properly equipped to be.
|6 days 8 hours ago||Take it from someone who has||
Take it from someone who has the same first name: that's a losing battle you're fighting.
|1 week 12 hours ago||Also this is just a little||
Also this is just a little bit sweeter because Boston is most likely hosed. They have to beat Tampa and then hope that either Ottawa earns no points against already-eliminated Philly, or that Pittsburgh gets one or zero points in two games.
|1 week 16 hours ago||Stafford's actual biggest||
Stafford's actual biggest problem is that Lions fans see Aaron Rodgers twice a year and think Stafford should as good or better. He's the second-best QB in the division, which isn't bad in a division with Rodgers. There might be five, maybe six, QBs in the league you could reasonably want over Stafford.
|1 week 16 hours ago||We always knew Chicago fans||
We always knew Chicago fans were nothing but a bunch of testicles.
|1 week 3 days ago||You're making the mistake of||
You're making the mistake of viewing the game through the lens of hindsight. But decisions that affect the outcome of the game can only be made during the game. Hence, that's the only proper way to view things like instant replay. It's not a matter of confidence, it's a matter of probabilities. A three-pointer has a completely different effect on the game and the probability of winning, depending on when it's scored.
Besides, your argument is contradicting itself. Does it have an effect on the game if a star player gets into foul trouble early? Of course it does. And why is this? Because not all minutes of the game are created equal. If they were, there would be no such thing as foul trouble. Coaches would only substitute based on matchups and rest and just let their players foul out when they fouled out. But they don't do this because it's more important to have them playing with a minute left than with 15 minutes left.
Here's further evidence that a point is not just a point and they really don't all count the same. Picture the situation of a player at the free throw line with two seconds left and his team down two. If the effect of making a free throw were "just one point" then you'd expect that if you studied every situation where this ever happened, there'd be a random distribution between making none, making only the first, making only the second, and making both. It would be nothing more than a weighted coin flip. But that's not the case. You'd find that it's very rare a player misses the first and makes the second, because he needed to make the first in order for the second to matter. Missing the first causes him to purposely miss the second, in order to try for a rebound rather than give the ball up. One point is worth the same as zero points. This situation would be skewed toward three of the four possible outcomes. That alone is proof that the effect of a miss on the first shot is not just one point.
To say that the effect of a three-pointer is just three points regardless of when it happens is to assume basketball is equivalent to a weighted random number generator much like a lotto drawing. But since it's infinitely more preferable to win than to lose, that's the wrong way to look at it. It only makes sense to view it that way if a basketball season were ultimately determined by your point margin at the end of it, and not wins and losses. And even then, an "ending" implies changing your strategy at some point and accepting more risk. So it's probably more accurate to say it makes sense only if the outcome of a basketball season were determined by point margin over a randomly-chosen stretch of the season.
|1 week 3 days ago||That's exactly what the News||
That's exactly what the News does. I have a subscription and they have a digital version of the print version of the paper, sort of like an Adobe Reader version but more sophisticated.
|1 week 3 days ago||Of course it holds up.||
Of course it holds up. Answer any of the questions I posed in the post and you'll see why. It's not possible for a bad call's effects to be exacerbated over 15 minutes of play unless you think there's some kind of psychological effect to it that causes the screwed-over team to give up.
More plays means more chances to do something that covers up the effect of the call. Fewer plays means fewer chances to do something. That's such common sense it's practically a tautology. Any play that happens afterward helps to erase the call's effects.
|1 week 3 days ago||I'd be terribly disappointed||
I'd be terribly disappointed to see that. The News is by far the superior publication, for many reasons.
|1 week 3 days ago||As we all know, two points||
Wrong. Only in hindsight is that true. In the moment, when actual decisions have to be made, the earlier the event, the more time there is for that event to become lost in the shuffle.
What would you rather do? Hit a three-pointer to go up four with 14 minutes left, or hit a three-pointer to go up four with 1 second left?
If you could pick a time where the referees would screw up in your favor and give you possession and a one-point lead, when would you rather have it? At 14 minutes, or at five seconds?
You've just scored a basket and you're now down by two points. There are 14 minutes left. What do you do?
You've just scored a basket and you're now down by two points. There are 14 seconds left. What do you do?
The closer you get to the end of the game, the fewer chances you have to change the outcome. Every decision means more. Getting it right at 1:32 is far more crucial because there are far fewer possessions left. The two-minute mark for automatic replays is trying to strike a balance between not disrupting the flow of the game and trying to get it right at the most important moments. And it's a fallacy to say that if an undeserved basket is scored at 30 seconds, it's the same as if an undeserved basket is scored at 13 minutes, because taking away the undeserved basket at 13 minutes doesn't just mean the game would have proceeded exactly the same as it did only with two fewer points. Lots of different decisions might have been made and there is plenty of time to wipe out the effects of the mistake. There is no time to wipe out the effects of a mistake at the end of a game.
|1 week 4 days ago||Needs moar JMFJ.||
Needs moar JMFJ.