uncle flap

Not that I had high expectations or anything, but that was god awful. Why not get some insight from local beat writers for each team? I felt like I knew more about the other teams than these clowns, and they are PAID analysts. What a joke.

I know that there are private schools like that. I just saw a piece on one of them on PBS last weekend. However, the basis for schools like that are small class sizes and specialized student and family counseling. Even then, not all of them work. I'm not trying to play up a schtick- I'm asking legit questions that aren't answered by you or the article. What is it exactly that makes private schools better than public schools? To me, it seems the obvious answer is predicated on small class sizes and selective admission and selective hiring of teachers/staff. I'm saying I don't see that as practical on a scale as large as the entirety of school-age children. Like I asked in my earlier posts, what exactly are the "facts?" Is it really $ per student? If so, how is that money spent differently than in public schools? I find the "adjustment" for socio-economic factors dubious. I'd like to know how the adjustment is made; Which actual factors contribute to this adjustment, and which factors are ignored? And again, there is a lot of correlation in that article being passed off as causation. I think a great deal of the problems with education are due to society as a whole rather than specific policies. Where is the adjustment for that? I ask these questions simply as part of a general question: If it is so easy for private schools, why aren't public schools already following the same model? If your answer is, "Unions," you will have to do better than that. If you think unions are the only problem, wouldn't student performance be the same, but simply cost more? Time to do a little more critical thinking here.

Hate to break it to you guys, but: ESPN- Source: Bills to Attend Gordon's Pro Day, and: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/09/bills-browns-will-check-out-josh-gordon-on-tuesday/

Even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics? I don't see how that is possible. It is not as simple as dismissing the outliers. Students do not exist in a vacuum. A few students can have an impact beyond their own grades. Private schools and charters kick out "bad" kids and they wind up in public schools. Some other things to consider in about what is reported in that article: First about the "stagnation" of student performance; Could it be possible that without all those hires and resources devoted to education that student performance would be worse? I'm not saying that's the case but it sure seems like a correlation and not causation. Second, I don't understand what the author is proposing. It seems like public schools = bad and private schools = good. Why is that? Couldn't public schools just do what private schools do? Wat is that exactly? Have fewer teachers and smaller class sizes? It doesn't work that way. Private schools have limited enrollment, the more students that apply, the more selective the schools can be with their admissions. I'd wager that private schools succeed more because of small class sizes and parental involvement (financial and/or actual). For public schools to create a similar environment, MORE teachers and staff should be hired. Teachers (and support staff) to keep class sizes down, and counselors and groups like the Buffalo Police Department's task force (essentially truant officers) to get more parents invested in their children's futures (at the very least getting the kids to school, and hopefully with an appropriate attitude toward their education).

At the time of my post I didn't realize you were baiting hypersensitive anti-racists by design. In that case, well done. *starts slow clap*

I'm not trying to start an argument, but based on being a casual college football fan and seeing that scenario a number of times, and the clear explanation in the video I just posted, I am sure he and the rest were coached to not move from that point on. There is no whistle on an offsides unless the QB spikes the ball, or is clearly not participating in the play and a defender is pursuing the QB unabated. If you didn't or can't watch the video the color commentator explains that the oline coach is a strict former Marine and they are coached to not move until the play is over.

That is what he was taught to do. In the OP's video, I think either the other linemen didn't think the D was offside, or they didn't do what they were taught (and probably got chewed out). I posted this in the Zebrie thread from three days ago. There's a full explanation by the TV crew:

Right on.

No it was 0-0 on the third offensive play of the game. Hindsight is supposed to be 20/20 It likely had everything to do with him tearing his ACL. He was helped off of the field after SJ's block, then further injured himself on the first play he returned. I'm not blaming SJ in the sense that he intended to injure Berry, but SJ certainly was the main cause of his injury. Perhaps the only other blame to go around is on Berry himself to rush back into the game, and/or the trainers/medical staff who probably should've recognized he wasn't able to return to the game. ESPN Game Log

First of all, Berry's tweet was tongue-in-cheek. Second, if indeed Berry or one of the Chiefs cheap-shots Johnson you can bet your bottom dollar he'll be suspended. I wouldn't be surprised if Goodell talks to the Chiefs prior to that game, especially if there are any rumblings in the media that Johnson is being targeted.

FSU and others coach the kids to freeze when they think the defense jumped offsides to emphasize that it was not a false start. He probably took it too far in that case but here's another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpPGfj1_sM

In the case I described earlier, the trooper was just a dick and there was nothing I could do about it. I was out toward the Adirondacks and unbeknownst to me right near a trooper lodge. So I'm not going back there to see a judge. Plus, like I said, I was entrapped. My MO when pulled over is turn the car off, put the keys on the dash and put my hands on the wheel holding my license and registration. Then only speak when spoken to. Usually that sets the tone for me getting off with a warning. But this time, I was asked loaded questions by the trooper right off the bat. So my "excuses" were mere hypothetical explanation to why I may have been speeding. However, I sensed he was getting annoyed and I certainly wasn't going to make it worse by saying, "I plead the Fifth." There also may have been some "party supplies" in the car (was driving back from a bachelor party excursion) so I wanted to get on with my trip without a search of the vehicle. It's a risk. It is up to the cop to include your "confession" in his citation, or let you off with a warning because he appreciates your honesty. As I described in the earlier scenario, my hands were tied because the trooper was a dick and it didn't matter what I said. He had me on radar and then to put the nail in the coffin tried his damndest to get me to admit to the infraction, to ruin my chances of fighting it. I could've plead the fifth or said I don't know how to answer your question or something like that but I didn't want my car searched by seeming uncooperative. I could go on but I'll stop with the thread hijacking.

I used to agree with you until once I got pulled over and the cop said, "If you had tapped the brakes, I would've known that you saw me and would be travelling slower from that point on." He then said something along the lines of noticing him (the cop) meant I was at least an attentive driver and not just speeding carelessly. Of course that could've just been that guy- I slowed way down after I was sure I was tagged by radar a few weeks ago and thought it the cop might've realized I was only speeding to pass a guy right after a one lane highway became two lanes, and downhill to boot. So I tried to be polite and explain the situation without incriminating myself, but I was basically entrapped into admitting I was speeding (by not denying it- what's the point, he had me on radar anyway?) which the cop then included on the ticket as some sort of supporting deposition. There is one definite plus to braking even if you think you've been caught- you alert the drivers behind you that there is a "hazard." I'm surprised no one used a term I learned from my Grampa to describe these schmucks the OP is talking about: "left lane bandits." Then again, I have no idea if that's common or a term he coined himself. But it sure rubbed off on his sons and then on to the next generation including me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ

So glad he's finally gone. And rumor has it they aren't done wheeling and dealing.

True indeed. No shame in coming up short against this Spanish team. Congrats on the second place finish

Thanks. I don't really understand the particulars of quantum mechanics but I like to think of it like Horton Hears a Who; There's always another "universe" on a bigger or smaller scale. The rub is we are seemingly limited by our perception. As I understand it, particles like quarks are the smallest particles not made up of other particles. But doesn't "something" have to make up the quarks? Isn't it just that scientists have not yet been able to differentiate the components of a quark? Up until relatively recently, atoms were thought to be the fundamental components of the universe...Just wondering out loud. And yeah, time is an interesting monkey wrench to throw in the mix. Since time is construct of our perception, it seems we are again limited. I've heard of Planck time but isn't that based on no discernable difference from one "moment" to the next? But what if/when scientists find a way to discern a difference? Sheesh. Time to give my brain a break

How would you know now? That's the point. Chemotherapy and Radiation therapy weren't the result of someone looking for cancer treatments. They became common place because of someone thinking outside the box and applying scientific discoveries in a novel way. EDIT: These treatments are the result if someone looking for cancer treatments. But chemotherapy has its roots in chemical warfare, and radiation therapy was a result of an application of x-rays, which were discovered by - you guessed it- a physicist. A poor choice of words before, but my point remains, the more we know about everything, the more we can use that knowledge in unexpected ways.

I get what you're saying, but also consider by further understanding the so-called "minute science," there is the possibility of applying what has been learned about quantum physics in other areas. Knowledge is power- you never when it will come in handy. Oh, and maybe someone (ahem, Tom) can help me understand how the HIggs Boson is attracted to other particles. I realize gravity isn't totally understood, but isn't the main tenet that attraction is based on mass? So if there is no mass prior to an interaction, what gives? Feel free to call me an idiotTM for asking a question that you already deferred to Feynman, but I'm just hoping you've got another clever analogy to dumb it down for me.

Wow I hadn't heard about this and was confused because I saw the title and thought of this movie I saw on Netflix not too long agoSukiyaki Western Django which had Tarantino in it. It wasn't anything special, but you might like it if you're a Tarantino fan. Takashi Miike is the director of this one, and not that it's a bad movie, but not nearly as good as some of the others I've seen that he's directed. Anyway, thanks #8! I hadn't heard about this or seen the trailer and it looks like it should be great.

Two good points. In regard to Meathead's post, I think if he were able to make it more obvious that he was joking (i.e. erring on the side of non-racism), we wouldn't have seen such a reaction. You may be right about ingrained perceptions and hyper-sensitivity, but to use that to defend Meathead's lame attempt at humor doesn't jive. (I'm not saying that you are defending him or excusing him.) It sounds lame, but instances like these are why there are emoticons. Why not put a winky face? Or sign the post "-Rush Limbaugh"? As far as the hyper-sensitivity and -as stated above- the swiftness in some to cry foul as a mechanism to declare their "non-racism," much of this is due to the public nature of the message board. Not everyone is familiar with one another to know when someone is joking based on the bulk of their posts or their personality/actions IRL. As a counter-example, I have friends of all types of backgrounds (not pulling that card), and I am comfortable making racist/ethnic jokes with them, because they know I don't actually think those things. And yet I don't go around public places and say the same sort of things. Not because I don't want people to think I'm not PC or racist or whatever, but because it is in fact offensive to some people, kidding or not. Obviously, I don't want people to think I'm racist, but I also don't put a lot of stock in to strangers' opinions of me. Lastly, I think the pendulum is in fact swinging back. As a not so old guy, I have white friends in college who are comfortable dropping the n-word in public- as a "term of endearment" of course, but you wouldn't catch me doing that. Same goes for my junior high students. All ethnicities use the n-word and it drives me nuts. I imagine it would drive most people my age and older nuts too. But these kids are going to be adults soon. I wonder if they will continue to be so hypo-sensitive (as it was earlier described) or if they will mature. PS yeah I'm the guy who called out somebody on TSW for saying "what about us white people?"

Congrats! That was a hell of a game. Italy has gotten better every game so far this tournament and are heading to Kiev with a ton of momentum. I was wrong to doubt them. Spain should be nervous.

Bud Adams didn't sell the Oilers, he moved the team himself. He's one of the most famous NFL owners, so I don't know why you'd think no one remembers that he owned the Oilers. Also, I have no idea what you are trying to say about a right of first refusal. I'm not sure how the NFL views these types of agreements other than that owners have to approve both a sale and a relocation. Furthermore, I'd argue it is more lucrative to keep the Bills in Buffalo anyway (for the future owner AND the league in general), so I don't think we should worry too much about relocation. That and the fact local and state politicians would be hard pressed to let a large company such as the Bills leave town without a fight.

Bombing victims? I hope you don't think the only case of genocide was the Holocaust. As far as coverage, I saw that story on CNN and in other mainstream news outlets online. It's not like the news wasn't reporting it, it just didn'tt America all up in arms. That seems more likely a case of timing and a lack of a prominent figure making it a talking point. Trayvon Martin's case wasn't immediately picked up by the mainstream media. It wasn't until after his family hired a publicist that it gained steam. Then the Adkins story kind of got lumped in with the Trayvon story briefly.

:thumbdown: There's a pointy white hat and robe combo that ought to suit you well.