eSJayDee

Have you tried another PC? (I'm assuming you're using a 3.5" floppy on a Windoze PC.) For that matter, 'read-only' should allow you to open it (i.e. 'read'), but just not update it. If possible, I'd suggest opening it up on another PC possibly using a different OS (Linux, Mac, DOS) then emailing it to yourself.

I'm going to upgrade the sound system in my classic car & I'm wondering about the quality of sound between 2 options. Option 1 is to have the guts replaced from my original AM. This unit is rated for 180 or 45wpc. Option 2 is a hidden unit that's rated for 140 or 35wpc. I'm not looking for anything awesome, just something basically equivalent to what you'd find in a nice new car. Will there likely be a noticable difference in the 'usable' volume of the 2 systems (I have a fairly loud engine/exhaust)? TIA

I don't think it's a good idea. Based on my observations, I certainly wouldn't say that MW has 'nimble feet'. In pass protection, about the only way I can recall him being beat is by people going outside him, i.e. he's not quick enough to get in their way. Also, typically teams run 'right-handed', i.e. bull on the right, pull from the left. By all accounts, MW is indeed a bull & a force to be reckoned w/ straight up on run plays. I think he should stay on the right where he seems best suited.

I think one thing the 2 'style' offenses will have in common is their limiting of options. A 'DB style' offense is limited by nature of needing to have provisions for max protect in the case of multiple blitzers. I also feel that one of DB's weaker points was/is in scanning the field. The inability (or at least a poor ability) to hit short, touch passes AND the requirement for max protect makes the opportunity to play to DBs strengths (intermed & long 'real' passes) that much limited. I think a JPL offense will be limited w/ respect to his options when confronted w/ various defenses (i.e. 'hot' plays & audibles). Like most young QBs, running is a viable option AND it appears to me that Mularkey/Clements if anything encourage it. W/ regard to how a JPL offense will differ, it brings to minds a comment by Flutie several years ago. Basically he said that on blitzes, he (Flutie) was responsible for one man. Either outrun or elude him. Having this ability IMMEDIATELY gives him one more option that DB seldom had, that is a legitimate safety valve route being run. (One less blocker means one more guy out in pattern.)

I think it depends on how assured he wants/needs to be that he's the starting QB. I could easily see him going to a team like Dallas, being named starter & when/if the offense struggles, being replaced (Hanson or if vINTie sticks around).

Yes, from a subjective point, I'd say he has very poor touch on short passes. However, I think those stats are somewhat misleading as I think several of those are throw aways. This is his usually (only) mode to avoid a sack. Manning is by no means highly elusive, but his moves around in the pocket better, makes quicker decisions AND probably most importantly, I doubt the Colts do max protect as much as we do so his 'dump to avoid the sack' throw needs to be downfield (or OB).

Common man, be serious. If he was gay, why would he rape a girl?

How 'bout just that their styles and strengths are so disparate that it wouldn't be a good fit?

I disagree that we're that far away from the playoffs. Look at it this way: We had the most productive ST in the league. By most measurements, we were a top 5 defense. Using a little subjectivity and combining those stat measures, I think we are a top 5 Dee. Our offense, when clicking, reached the level of mediocrity. Overall, not actually looking at stats, but I would estimate that we're in the bottom 10, but probably not bottom 5. There's 12 teams that make the playoffs. Roughly speaking, if your combined rankings of the above individual units ranks in the top 12, you're pretty likely to make the playoffs. If we maintain our Dee & ST in the top 5, having an offense rank even 15 should yield very good chances of making the playoffs. Heck, top 20 might even do it. Is it possible to replace only 1 player w/ another & get that sort of improvement? I think so. Can JPL replacing Bledsoe result in that sort of improvement? I don't know, but I hope so and I can only assume that the braintrust at OBD would think he has that capability or else they wouldn't have selected him at such a high price.

I'll go along w/ Corp up there. Versus an M3, I'd take the SB victory. An M5 would be a much more difficult decision.

Like what eball said, IIRC, there's a limit as to how much a player can have his salary just outright reduced (at least for salary purposes). Again, IIRC, it's only something like 25%. So for instance in Moulds' case, his $6m salary or whatever, could only be reduced to say $4.5m yielding only a $1.5m savings this year.

Doesn't that preclude Sir Paul Somone below/above mentioned Leno. I saw his garage on a car show recently. He's gotta be near the top of my list.

I think there's one for every annual TSW tailgate party, if that counts. I have one from this past year, although I didn't attend.

I won't go so far as to call Felser an idiot, but an annoying dofus, yes. On this particular one, I happen to agree w/ him. Montana, Elway, Starr, Unitas, Graham, Staubach, etc. (I'd put Kelly ahead of him.) I my opinion, there's a lot of QBs I'd rather have leading my team than Marino.

I don't think that proves too much. Just because a domain was registered on Sept 03 and the CURRENT administrative contact is someone, doesn't mean that he was the one that registered it. Losman has said that he basically went to school as a precursor to playing in the NFL. It wouldn't be a stretch that he, or one of his more techie/entrepeneurish friends had the forethought to register a domain name.

2 players at opposite ends of the spectrum. Like many others have mentioned, BJ (what does that stand for? ) Hobart & Bruce Smith (he did play post-SB era). I'll admit he was great, but in my feelings about him was that he was a great big ass as well. JMHO.

Geez, I'd never thought I'd be defending a union, but here goes. Basically, as I mentioned in my post above, it's that unions expedite market efficiency. Let's say through union negotiation the manager of a widget factory makes $50/hr. Let's say I'm willing to get out of bed & do that job just as well as him (subtle barb ) for $28/hr, in a non-union environment, he'd get fired & be out of work. Now, he's out of work (temporarily) and collecting unemployment benefits. Further, (although not as significantly although in my opinion more important philosophically) society as a whole is being inefficient. (Gee, hope I'm not sounding too Brave New Wrold.) W/ him being unemployed, other producers of goods have lost a potential buyer, so they need to reduce workforce &/or change their price structure (lower prices &/or lower wages). Now eventually, he'll find a job, displacing someone else, et cetera et cetera and EVENTUALLY we'll find an equilibrium. (In general most people would be okay if they're making 1/2 the money they were but everything costs 1/2 as much. Likewise if everything cost double & they're making 2x as much. Although roughly stable prices are best for all.) But in the mean time, there has been a cost paid by inefficiency. The theory behind unions is that by having workers, who otherwise don't have sufficient clout to negotiate a 'fair' wage/benefit/condition/etc banding together, the solution benefits all (including non-union people).

Philosophically, I'm opposed to unions, but I realize that in some instances, they're a necessary evil. We live in a capitalist or free market society, where the cost of things is determined by supply & demand. We have laws (anti-trust, monopoly) prohibiting companies from acting in a way counter to these intentions, yet we allow the work force to do so. It's most 'fair' if I'm able to freely negotiate my level of compensation (including benefits & working conditions) w/ my prospective employer. The reason that (in some instances) that unions benefit all is that they (hopefully) expedite the finding of equilibrium between supply & demand. The discussion of whether or not unions are good or bad is a very intensive one, but I think it's safe to say that they essentially serve the same purpose as insurance. Overall, they're detrimental (i.e. cost more than their benefit) but in the case of unions, hopefully their collective bargaining abilities to lessen the inefficiencies (& cost) of finding equilibrium is sufficient to offset their cost. For something like the NFL or NHL I think they're clearly a poor & unnecessary idea.

I don't know who the dumbest is, but it certainly can't be Joe Theissmann. He's a genius like Norman Einstein!

Playing SHAPE? For him, wasn't that kinda roundish? Seriously, if you're referring to his wrist or whatever problem he had, I don't know. BTW, my vote for JPs back up is Bledsoe. Say what you will about his deficiencies for a starter, but it'd be very difficult to find a better QB suited for BU duty behind a green, semi-rookie. Considering the cap ramifications of releasing him (& that I think you want a proven, competent BU behind said new starter), I'd like to see us hold onto him.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that airbags 'chopped' from stolen cars usually fetch a few hundred apiece. (That's obviously for the airbags alone.)

Are my #s right? The spped of light is ~186,300 mi/sec IIRC. This translates to ~6.7*10^9 mph. That means that the object will be falling for almost 21 million seconds which is like 242 days. In that time it will cover 335,340,000 or almost 4 trips to the Sun from here. As you can see, this is a theoretical question only, 'cuz 1)one can't create a vacuum that large, and 2) over that distance, obviously gravity is no longer constant and the object will be acted upon by several other bodies.

I've only seen about 1/2 the episodes, so I'm by no means an expert on the show, but this idea just occurred to me. (Brought about by the observation that there should be some signinifcance to the song in a thread below. What if the reason they haven't been rescued is that 'they are everybody'. i.e. there's no one left on earth, or maybe the world that they left (& maybe we live in) is only a figment of their imaginations? Just food for thought.

Congratualations on your upcoming child; Condolences on having to resort to a mini-van Minivan : Manhood Is Not Intact Vascectomized And Neutered.

AHHH Yes, I do. I looked under there but didn't see anything. Look a bit deeper & I found it. Well see what that does.