Greg F

The Cornwall Canal was built in the late 1800's. There were 3 boats that used to run the Long Sault Rapids which no longer exist since the building of the power dam. The deepest draft on those 3 boats was six and a half feet. Not something you would want to navigate if you weren't familiar with the waters. What replaced it is pretty interesting history involving 2 countries, new locks and a pretty good size power dam with an international border going right down the middle. There has been talk of enlarging the Eisenhower locks in recent years but I haven't seen anything lately on it. Thank you. If you haven't already guessed Cornwall is in my neck of the woods just over the border. You got me interested in reading a little more of the local history which kind of explained the odd looking islands in front of the dam.

You might find this interesting.

Would have had to go through the Cornwall Canal locks which were only 14 feet deep just to get to lake Ontario.

Well there was ... and one did ... Just not the way most would imagine.

Our town counsel wants to spend $40,000 (of which $10,000 will come from the local taxpayers) for an engineering report on extending water and sewer lines. So after they spend the money they are going to ask the affected property owners if they want it. Not that they have any intention of listening to the affected property owners as one of the councilmen remarked "it will improve property values" and "raise the tax base".

It's always interesting when an article includes a scary picture and uses "a recent study" which they don't identify to promote their beliefs. We wouldn't want anybody actually reading the "recent study" now would we? Gator, your an object lesson of confirmation bias.

Based on atmospheric CO2 levels were talking around 1940 or so. It's always fun to watch them try to explain this: It's also always interesting to point out that at 150 ppm CO2 all plant life dies.

The artwork is from Robert Rohde, founder of Global Warming Art. The scale on that graph is in meters. Were talking millimeter changes now. Here is from the more recent past at the CSIRO web site. Sea levels were still rising well before there was any significant burning of fossil fuels. Guess it would be better to be a halfwit than a nitwit.

No I am not Tom although I wish I had half his wit. Sea level has been rising for more than 20,000 years. The fact they are still rising is not news.

Grasping at straws are we? Notice nothing quantitative in that statement. Got to keep the funding flowing. As I previously stated: Again: Sea level rise would have to increase almost 4 times faster than it is now to hit the 0.9 meter mark and more than 7 times faster to hit the 1.8 meter mark. Starting NOW. The IPCC's AR5 projections even with the extreme RCP8.5 scenario (assumes we burn almost all the fossil fuel reserves by 2100) only projects a rise of 1 meter. So gator, why do you hate science?

From NOAA: (0.12 inches is roughly 3 mm) Another Study They estimate that between 1993 and 2012 sea level rise averaged 3.13 mm per year. Which is pretty close to the global mean sea level from the TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 satellite altimeters at 2.9 ±0.4 mm per year. Notably between 2005 and 2011 the rate of sea level rise actually decreased relative to the 1993 to 2012 rate. The study that gator links to uses assumes a rise of 0.9 meters and 1.8 meters by 2100. That works out to an average sea level rise of 10.7 mm per year and 21.4 mm per year respectively. Just another study based on a dubious assumption which has no connection to reality.

There ... fixed it for you. Oh ... one other thing. Currency is not wealth. Currency is a useful tool to make the exchange of wealth more efficient. We create wealth by being more efficient in producing stuff, by working smarter. An early 80's CRAY super computer cost over $5 million, it had less computing power than the smart phone in your pocket. That is wealth creation. If you could take everything you own and go back 30 years in time you would be a very wealthy man. You have stuff that people 30 years ago could not even imagine owning. Even a modest car made today would be a luxury item 30 years ago with some features that were not available to even the richest people of that time. People 30 years ago who couldn't afford anything more than a simple calculator now have computers with more computing power that a CRAY super computer. Wealth isn't created by shuffling currency around. It's created by people working to produce stuff and provide services with increasing efficiency.

A lesson in redistribution:

Curious how some would rate the QB's from the past. Here is a bunch of QB's from 1985: David Archer ATL Bruce Mathison BUF Jim McMahon CHI Boomer Esiason CIN Bernie Kosar CLE Danny White DAL John Elway DEN Eric Hipple DET Lynn Dickey GB Warren Moon HOU Mike Pagel IND Bill Kenney KC Dan Marino MIA Tommy Kramer MIN Tony Eason NE Dave Wilson NO Phil Simms NYG Ken O'Brien NYJ Ron Jaworski PHI Mark Malone PIT Marc Wilson RAI Dieter Brock RAM Dan Fouts SD Dave Krieg SEA Joe Montana SF Neil Lomax STL Steve DeBerg TB Joe Theismann WAS

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. I suggest Vince Wilkfork's wife as her opponent.

We can't know for sure because the studies don't say what you think they say. For one thing the study population sizes are very small. Second is the lack of randomized controlled studies. Can you say control group? It is irresponsible to think we "know for sure" when we don't know the incidence rate in the general population. Don't even know the incidence rate for the athletes and therefore cannot know the relative risk. We know in Western countries that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer (15 to 30 times more likely). OTOH, the 'Japanese smoking paradox' clearly shows there are confounding factors that contribute to differences in relative risk between the Japanese and Western countries. Hereditary factors appear to not be a significant factor as people of Japanese decent living in Western countries have the same relative risk as non Japanese. What history should teach us is science is never settled nor is it as simple as we would like it to be.

Typically class action lawyers get between 25% to 33%.

If you get to see the replay again take notice of Burflict's path before and after he hits Brown. Instead of going straight past Brown he circles through him. It appears to me that he leaned in as he was going past Brown.

You said that in response to: The time frame is 1991 ... got it. From 1989 to 1993 there were not "guys were throwing more than 600 times". There was only one guy that threw over 600 times, Warren Moon, and he only did it once. And before that there was one guy in 1988 and 1986 (Marino) that had over 600 attempts. Which brings us to 1994 when all of sudden there are six QB's with over 500 attempts and three over 600 attempts. And you assert: Naw ... According to you rule changes had nothing to do with it. Hate to be captain obvious here but there is really no debate that the increase in passing is a direct result of deliberate rule changes with exactly that goal.

Your assertion is demonstrably wrong. In 2014 fifteen QB's had over 500 attempts, 6 of those QB's were over 600 attempts. In 1990 only five QB's had over 500 attempts, none were over 600. In 1991 only Warren Moon had over 600 attempts. The next closest was Marino with 549 attempts. No other QB's were over 500 attempts that year. In 1992 the only QB with over 500 attempts was Marino, none over 600. In 1993 three QB's were over 500 attempts, none over 600. In 1994 there were six QB's with over 500 attempts, three of which were over 600 attempts. So over a 5 year span in the beginning of the 90's there were only 6 instances of QB's having more than 600 attempts. In that era going over 500 attempts was relatively rare.

Agreed. The points against the 'defense' are all the point scored against a team including pick 6's, fumbles returned for touchdowns, and kicks returned for touchdowns. For example, Jacksonville had 7 interceptions/fumbles returned for touchdowns which show up in the 'defense' stats. Same thing on the 'offense' side. All the points scored are added to the 'offense' stats. The way the NFL reports these stats is misleading.

They should called Sammy for taunting Revis on that play.

Think lost ad revenue.

After tonight's game my suggestion is get the Bills moved into the NFC East.