bartshan-83
-
Posts
3,466 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bartshan-83
-
-
The very idea that every group has to fight the same fight against bigotry, with the same people using the same arguments on the other side, is a HUGE black mark on our country. Shame on people for making basic human rights something that has to be earned in pieces over time because "the majority" of morons don't give a crap about anyone other than themselves.
VERY well said.
-
PREVIOUS:
They all contain a three-letter sequence of adjacent letters of the alphabet in reverse order.
ENVIRONMENT
BEDCOVERS
RESPONSIBILITY
OUTSOURCE
CONFEDERACY
SLUGFEST
JIHAD
NUNAVUT
Apologies if you think that was kind of stupid...I don't always look at the answer before I post them.
TODAY:
A train that is 1 km long is moving along a straight track toward a tunnel that is 1 km long. The train travels at 30 km/h. How many minutes does it take the train to go completely though the tunnel?
-
PREVIOUS:
1. LADY, MATE, BORN, DOWN, STEP, GEAR -- All words can be preceded by FIRST
2.
CIRCLE
DANCE
STUDENT
BODY
BLOW
HARD
TIMES
SQUARE
TODAY:
What do all the words below have in common?
ENVIRONMENT
BEDCOVERS
RESPONSIBILITY
OUTSOURCE
CONFEDERACY
SLUGFEST
JIHAD
NUNAVUT
-
Stop undoing everything you taught me in childhood!
Triceratops never really existed
Well, I'm going to continue to believe in the Triceratops just like I believe Pluto is a planet and there are only 4 Food Groups.
PS - No wonder they were so truculent...
-
I guess if you want to make yourself feel like you're contributing to something...
Something you've obviously never felt the urge to do around here.
-
So we didn't get a complete right answer for #1 on Friday. I'll repost it to give everyone another crack. Good job to Links on #2 & #3
PREVIOUS:
2. Old Faithful
3. 58
TODAY:
1. Fill in the blanks to make common uncapitalized English words. The letters you put in the blanks, when read left to right, will spell out shorter words that all have something in common: What one word can precede each of them to create common two-word phrases?
1. FOO _ H _ R _ _
2. I _ M _ _ UR _
3. A _ _ _ IGI _ E
4. _ ISAV _ _ I _ G
5. P _ YCHO _ H _ RA _ Y
6. VE _ _ T _ _ IAN
2. Answer the clues to form a chain from CIRCLE to SQUARE. Each consecutive word pair creates a common phrase, name, or compound word. Clues for each word given in parentheses.
CIRCLE
(Do ballet)
(Pupil)
(Soul mate?)
(Huff and puff)
(Difficult)
(x, as in 3x2=6)
SQUARE
-
Zoe has four suitors but only dates men who are tall, dark and handsome.(a.) Alex, Brian, Chris and Dan all have a different total number of these attributes(b.) Only Alex or Dan is tall and fair.(c.) Only Brian or Chris is short and handsome.(d.) Alex and Chris are either both tall or both short.(e.) Brian and Dan are either both dark or both fair.
Who does Zoe date?
Infringer! The people have spoken and they reject your puzzle!
Kidding...I have been slacking. the puzzles have been kind of easy or stupid IMO so I've been trying to get good ones. Today's weren't too hot except for the 1st one I think.
Anyway, I think I got yours:
Zoe will date Chris...he is the only one who is Tall, Dark and Handsome.
My thinking was this:
Clues (d) and (e) are the starting points. One pair has to have the good quality and the other must have the bad, otherwise either no one can have either 0 or 3 good qualities. So Brian and Dan have to be FAIR and Alex and Chris TALL (if Brian and Dan are DARK, then Alex is SHORT which creates a problem because either Alex or Dan needs to be TALL and FAIR).
Moving on, Brian has to be SHORT and HANDSOME because Chris is TALL. So Brian is SHORT, FAIR and HANDSOME (1 quality). Alex has to be FAIR because if Dan is TALL, then no one will have 0 qualities. Therefore, Dan has to be SHORT, FAIR and UGLY (0 qualities). This leaves Alex and Chris, and since Alex already has one bad quality (FAIR), Chris must be the winner.
Alex = TALL, fair, HANDSOME
Brian = short, fair, HANDSOME
Chris = TALL, DARK, HANDSOME
Dan = short, fair, ugly
Winner?
-
7/27:
1.
ONTARIO
TABASCO
MEMENTO
VERTIGO
PLACEBO
SUBZERO
INFERNO
BRAVADO
FIDELIO
CHORIZO
2. 24
TODAY:
1. Fill in the blanks to make common uncapitalized English words. The letters you put in the blanks, when read left to right, will spell out shorter words that all have something in common: What one word can precede each of them to create common two-word phrases?
1. FOO _ H _ R _ _
2. I _ M _ _ UR _
3. A _ _ _ IGI _ E
4. _ ISAV _ _ I _ G
5. P _ YCHO _ H _ RA _ Y
6. VE _ _ T _ _ IAN
2 & 3.
-
I don't know how the smaller programs could afford it. I heard Mack Brown say on CFL that only 19 programs made money last year. All the rest (around 90 programs) lost money on football. Unless there was some sort of revenue sharing I don't see how it could be done. And even if there was revenue sharing,is there really enough money to go around?
I always hear different things about this. It seems people swear by both sides of the argument.
According to this article, 62 of the 66 BCS schools (+ Notre Dame) turned a net profit. And 17 of the 51 non-BCS schools did as well.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/3...stead-of-trees/
Now I'm sure OVERALL, far fewer schools make money on their entire athletic program (how could they?) But the big dogs of the big sports are still turning in good numbers.
-
But it's still a voluntary activity for students. I don't think an inequality in financial benefits necessarily makes it unfair. After all, no one is getting a dime to appear on American Idol. I think that's because the individuals are not the attraction for either source of entertainment -- there are plenty of other football players and crappy singers out there.
But aside from that, let's remember that all the cash being thrown off by football/basketball is funding all those Title IX programs that didn't exist 20 years ago. It's not just football players getting scholarships; it's kids in all those non-revenue generating sports that are being funded too.
As for the scholarship, it's value has also increased significantly over time; it is both a means of obtaining a degree and a required stepping stone to the NFL for that minority that will qualify. I get your point about it not doing a kid from the 'hood favors to stick him at Notre Dame, but even if he's way over his head academically, it's still a better opportunity that he's getting pumping gas. It's up to the kids to take advantage (and of course the school has some obligation to help them academically, which I'm sure is still a big problem).
This is where I agree with you. It's very hard to clean up corruption if you don't remove the incentives for it. You do need a carrot as well as a stick. I'd say the prohibition against working is silly but the reality is these kids can't possibly hold a job and play football and hope to graduate anyway. I don't know how you tackle this, but you're right that there's something wrong if the kid doesn't have $5 in his pocket. I could see it being reasonable to provide players with a few hundred bucks a month; I just think it gets way out of hand if people start thinking of them as minor league players who have contract rights, etc. The free education should still be the dominant form of compensation.
I don't really disagree with any of this actually. And the bolded part is where I think the crux of the matter lies. Whether or not people think of big money college sports as minor leagues, the fact remains that they are closer to that then they are to being representative of the school in general. So I think you have to make a choice:
1. Tear the entire system apart and make college athletics subservient to the academic requirements of the school. Meaning, students who choose to participate in their school's varsity teams would come from the pool of students who were accepted to the college. If you can run a 4.3 but got a 950 on your SAT, you aren't going to a school that requires a 1150. College athletics would be about students competing against other students. Setup true minor leagues where 18 year old athletes could pursue their profession the way anyone else does and get paid the way anyone else does. I thought it was so great when Brandon Jennings went to Europe to play basketball 2 years ago (if you aren't familiar, Jennings was a top-10 recruit to initially verballed to Arizona. Then he decided he could make money and improve his game by signing with a European team. He did that for 1 year and then entered the NBA draft and was one of the best rookies last season).
2. Accept that college will always be the vehicle for big time athletes trying to make the jump to the pros. This is much more likely and I can't even say I don't want this. But something needs to be done to help fix this. There is no reason give guys enough money to buy and Audi in college, but pretending that you've done enough by offering a scholarship when obviously impropriety is rampant is ignorant and irresponsible. I liken it to people who don't believe in teaching their children about birth control and think abstinence is the only form of sex education a child should get. Of course no one wants their kids having lots of sex at a young age, but taking the hardline, all-or-nothing stance does far less to combat the problem then accepting that it's going to happen anyway and the best thing you can do is make sure they are fully informed of all the risks and know about using protection, etc.
Colleges pretending that they have fulfilled their end of the bargain by offering a scholarship and then washing their hands of any future consequences is irresponsible. They are silent collaborators in a broken system. I'm not trying to coerce them into bribing their athletes to stay away from "improper" money, nor am I absolving an athlete who takes something from a booster. I just think that there needs to be a little give here and that it would go a long way.
There would need to be a universal cap on the stipend that applied to all NCAA schools. Otherwise there would be bidding wars and the problem would just change forms. I am no expert whatsoever in Title IX, but I would think that the argument for a stipend would be it could only apply to athletes from sports that generate a net profit. If the football program is funding the rowing team, the swim team and the women's volleyball team, then it's logical where the compensation should be applied.
-
The Obsessive Compulsiveness in me makes me dislike having seasons and statistics be incompatible with each other. I like things matching up and being consistent. I like the idea that Marino and Dickerson's yardage records seem to be just out of reach. But yeah, stats are for losers.
So my OCD aside, I have no other beef with it. It's more about dropping 2 preseason games. There is no reason why the most violent pro sport should have an exhibition period that is 25% as long as it's entire season.
Definitely increase roster limits.
-
Bill Simmons-Only bad because he's from New England. Really a pretty good, and funny, writer. Wild Card
Spot on.
I mean, a New England sports writer who loves basketball and doesn't care about hockey isn't popular in WNY? Shocking!
Simmons can run hot and cold and gets a little too ADD sometimes, but he has a great, conversational writing style that is both funny and creative. Many "sports" writers try to infuse pop culture into their articles and end up looking ridiculous (see Reilly, Rick) but Simmons pulls it off better than most. And IF (yes, that's a big IF around here) you care at all about the NBA, you won't find a more invested, passionate writer.
-
Read the bottom, it was pretty freaking obvious that:
A: Clayton ranked the Patsies* over the Jests
B: The other guys are on the Jests bandwagon
Bart, I know you are an intelligent person, but come on, this isn't your best and brightest post. We all say and do stupid ****.
It seemed like you were blaming Clayton for contradicting himself, which he did not.Actually after going back and re-reading it, it still seems that way.
I don't much like Clayton either. But this makes you seem like you don't know what is going on more than it reflects poorly on Clayton.
You're both right. Clayton didn't contradict himself. The article he contributed to and put his name on was created in such a way as to turn his contribution into seemingly contradictory statements. I grossly misconstrued the situation and I apologize for the original post.
Mea culpa.
-
YESTERDAY:
1.
mephiSTOPhelean
telecomMUTE
imMODEst
reINFOrcements
cENTERpiece
balLISTics
2.
SWEDEN
MONACO
SERBIA
CYPRUS
POLAND
NORWAY
(WARSAW is the capital)
3.
1/4...nice job links with the graphical proof.
TODAY:
1. Each answer is a seven-letter word or name that ends in O. Each answer starts with a different letter of the alphabet.
1. Canadian province
2. Hot sauce
3. Keepsake
4. Hitchcock film
5. Inert medication
6. Below freezing C.
7. Hellfire
8. Fake courage
9. Beethoven opera
10. Spicy sausage
2. One arrangement of the letters in the word PUPPET is UETPPP, but this ends with the letter P. How many different six-letter arrangements of the letters of the word PUPPET are there that neither begin nor end with P? (213)
-
Actually it looks like Clayton wrote the one liners for the Jets and Pats (and thought the Jets would challenge the Pats for the division) but he alone did not rank the teams. In other words, the one-liners are Clayton's, the ranking is not.
I'm aware of that, Deano. My point was far be it for ESPN to actually release something that makes sense when the final product is assembled. I was just poking fun at Clayton and ESPN...it's not that serious.
Shhhhh too much facts for the OP. I saw the original post and link, and just had to laugh my ass off at the generally stupidity of the post.You're actually in charge of educating children?
-
Better yet, hire some crappy-yet-popular, "tortured artist" bands (Coldplay, Kings of Leon, Collective Soul, etc.) and force them to sing public domain songs for your amusement.
Easy....
Don't lump Collective Soul in with those martians.
-
http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2010&week=0
The Bills ranking is unimportant (#31, need a new QB blah blah blah), but what is this mess:
Jets - #7- With 12 Pro Bowl position players, the Jets are loaded to challenge the Pats. (Clayton)
Patriots - #9
- Who keeps the Patriots ahead of every other AFC East team? Tom Brady. (Clayton)
Clayton, your whole assignment here is to write 1 sentence each about 8 teams. And the only rule is don't contradict yourself.
Good work, ESPN. Get back to giving LeBron an hour to talk about himself.
-
Let me use a motor racing analogy. If both cars are relatively equal it is very difficult to make up time / distance on the other car. But, if one is a high end sports car (you fill in the make/model) and the other is a Smart car, making up is fairly easy. Schleck and Contador are the former example.
The last stage is essentially a procession with a couple of sprint points and the stage winner at stake. The overall GC (general classification) goes un-contested. That being said, one of the Tour's back in the 80's, the last stage was a time trial. Everything was still up for grabs. Greg LeMond was about 20 seconds behind Laurent Fignon. LeMond, using aero technology that is now standard issue, made up the 20 seconds plus 8 or 9 additional seconds to win.
In the final stage like yesterday, teams would never challenge the leader like that. Sport etiquette.
Does that help answer your question?
Thanks BB and JA...very helpful.
That is more or less what I thought was the case, I just don't understand the ins and outs of cycling etiquette and physics.
Clarify further for me though...is it more about and etiquette or more about difficulty? Could Schleck have taken down Contador if he decided to ignore the etiquette and go for it? Was it humanly possible?
And how does the team play such a huge role in "protecting" its leader? For example:
If his team had tried to pull away, the Astana team would have gone along with him (including Contador) and Schleck never would have been able to do it.What does this mean? How would Astana be able to thwart Schleck? Is it simply a matter of getting in his way or it more about the peloton and being able to move more efficiently and quickly in a group?
If Schleck or his team tried to challenge the leader, the peloton would have chased them down and spit them out like cherry pits.How does that work? Did I answer my own question above? Can the peloton easily chase down any lone rider who is out in front by himself?
And finally, despite the "last stage etiquette" is there a certain point where it is fair game? What if the lead is 3 seconds...or 1 second? Will they duke it out then or still call it a day?
-
Why is a lead of 39 seconds (such as Contador held) considered insurmountable? It is an etiquette thing? As in, do all the riders treat the last stage as a victory lap and really consider the time trial to be the end?
Is it because it's just impossible to make up that kind of time on a short stage? I read that if Schleck had made a charge, Astana would have blocked him. What does that mean? The other riders on the team would have just tried to stay in front of him and not let him pass?
I've never understood this...
-
LAST WEEK:
1. SCHOLARSHIP
2. LECTURE
3. CUM LAUDE
4. PREMED
5. ALUMNI
6. DEAN'S LIST
TODAY:
1. Form six longer words by filling in the blanks with six short, common words that appear on many TV remote controls.
1. MEPHI _ _ _ _ HELEAN
2. TELECOM _ _ _ _
3. IM _ _ _ _ ST
4. RE _ _ _ _ RCEMENTS
5. C _ _ _ _ _ PIECE
6. BAL _ _ _ _ ICS
2. LINK
3. LINK
-
Participation in college athletics is a voluntary activity; there is no reason at all to pay any of them.
And many of them, including almost all college football players, are paid. The cost of attending a major university is generally between $25k - $50k (and up) per year. I'd say that is plenty of compensation for a 19 year old.
Respectfully disagree.
College sports (especially men's basketball and football) are money-generating enterprises that rain cash down upon several parties. The schools, the conferences, the NCAA, TV networks, etc. Nothing about this resembles an amateur situation. These are high-profile minor leagues. And the shameless revenue-whoring and money-grabbing that all of these parties partake in is viewed with hardly a batted eye.
I don't agree with the "free education" argument because the behavior of the parties involved belies its equity. Every college football program in the country uses up their scholarship allotment because they know it's a steal on ROI. No college in the country is doing any star high school athlete a favor by offering him a scholarship. Quite the reverse. And scholarships have been the standard compensation for generations. Yet the amount of money generated by the sports has increased astronomically.
And the main point is that modest payment to players would do more to combat impropriety and this cesspool culture that pervades college athletics. I'd wager that the vast majority of misconduct (or temptation to engage in it) occurs with players who have nothing and want just a little. It's easy to cast them as spoiled and greedy with their free education, room and board and perks of being an athlete. But it sucks having no money in college (anytime actually). I knew guys at ND who were ballin on the field but didn't have 10 bucks to grab a pizza. They can't get jobs, FOOTBALL is their job and I guarantee it's like working 40 hours and going to school full-time. How tempting would it be to take $1500 from a booster when you're scoring TDs every week but can't afford to take your girl to dinner and a movie? I don't condone it, but I understand it.
Paying for condos and buying kids cars is not the reality of college cheating. It's the 1K payments, the plane tickets or the cushy no-show job. Let's say you work at the Gap in college 35-40 hrs/week...you might pull in $1000 a month. I bet if colleges paid players that amount there would be a huge drop in impropriety among NCAA athletes.
The only obstacle (and it's pretty major) is Title IX and how you would deal with only compensating athletes from revenue-generating sports. I'm not sure how to answer that. But the system we are in is broken...it survives only because people don't care enough to upset the status quo.
-
Sharrod herself, an appointed government employee, specifically stated in her speech to NAACP that the reason there is so much anger on the right is strictly because Obama is black.
This is crap. We both know that. So the WH is singularly responsible for putting themselves in this no-win situation.
But hey, no one is paying attention to the deficit, or the oil spill, or the high unemployment...so I guess that's something.
I haven't watched the whole speech (43 mins) and I wasn't aware she said that. That sentiment is something that needs to go away. I'm sure there are a ton of people who hate Obama because he is black (or half-black). Those people are called racists. But if tomorrow Obama resigned and Joe Biden became president, would millions of conservatives suddenly be less angry?
From what little I've read about Sherrod's life, it sound like she has had to deal with a lot of actual racism. I can see where some of her jaded comments might come from.
And to your last point, you're right. But I also don't think this is something Obama wants to deal with. Not exactly an ideal distractor.
-
Their response to that should have been "!@#$ you, we're doing our due diligence."
Ab-so-fugging-lutely.
-
In the last part of the video that Breitbart posted, Sherrod admits the lesson she learned from her experience; being poor isn't about being black or white. Everyone missed it. They were all too busy reacting to what they initially heard, and tripping over themselves to do something other than what they should have done in the first place; pick up on her last comments, go back, review the entire speech, and THEN react.
Breitbart could have easily edited that last portion out, but he didn't. That was part of the rope-a-dope. I don't think Breitbart is a stupid man. He knew what was going to happen, just like he knew what would happen if he only released one ACORN video instead of all of them at once. That is what I'm talking about. He anticipated how people would react and they didn't disappoint. And for what it's worth, he didn't make the WH and NAACP look stupid. They did that all on their own, and I maintain that he KNEW they would, and that thinking is what I found to be great stuff.
Realizing that Andrew Breitbart has an agenda and that WHAT he did was stupid is indisputable. I wouldn't call his kind "a dime a dozen," but politically speaking, you can't act like WHAT he did was ground-breaking or new. This type of crap happens all the time; it's just that this time it was started by a guy on the right against a group on the left.
But as the dust settles and Breitbart climbs back into his cave until the next video is released, the world will forget Breitbart for a while, but will continue to remember that they watched the WH make fools of themselves yet again, and that is a narrative that simply seems to be never-ending.
I gotcha.
I don't think he is stupid either. But I do think he underestimated how this would turn around and make Sherrod into a martyr. I think his initial plan was to expose the NAACP as having racists among their ranks. In order to do that, he had to paint Sherrod as a racist.
I do think that the WH comes out looking the worst of everyone. They jumped the gun and paid the price.
But I'd really, really like to believe that had they actually done the right thing (waited to get all the facts, talked to Sherrod, talked to other people involved) that they would not have been tarred and feathered as racist-apologizers in the mean time.
I'm not so sure though.
Poor Puppy
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
Whats more F'd up is the psychological damage the dog will likely endure for the rest of her life. I mean, the best part of this story is her surviving and someone stepping up to pay for her surgery. But whoever takes Daisy in will likely have to be very patient for a very long time.
We adopted an awesome dog this spring (mixed breed...likely some Beagle and Australian Shepherd among others). We were told that he was "neglected" but it was pretty clear he was abused. He is scared to death of people and the slightest noise sets him off. He has totally bonded with my wife, but while he clearly likes me too, he is still very wary of me and becomes easily shaken. He's scared of his leash (I'm thinking maybe he was beaten with a leash, belt, etc.) and he is petrified of the area right outside our house (strange because he loves our parents' houses and other places).
I'll be honest, it's been rough. I've never experienced having a dog who didn't always run up to me when I came home and wag his tail frantically. And I've never had a pet who is clearly scared of me. He is the sweetest dog and I can't imagine what someone did to him to make him so distrusting. It's sick, and like most forms of abuse, it's terrible that the damage is long-term. I think animal abuse laws should mirror child abuse laws. Take a baseball bat to a 4-year olds leg 10 times and see how many years you get.
Sorry for the mini-LAMP....here he is BTW:
Dewey