shrader

What exactly is the point of those "that's the money you could be saving with Geico" commercials. Those things make absolutely no sense. Bring back the cavemen. And I'm not sure if it's a decent product, but I've been seeing this one commercial lately that really bugs me. It's for Lectric Shave (what a horrible name). The hairs are smiling and yelling out "lectric shave". But they're about to be brutally murdered. Call me crazy, but I'm not going to be all happy if I'm about to be cut in half. Then they're still all happy after the razor passes and they're falling to the ground. Hmmm, maybe I'm paying a bit too much attention to this commercial.

Yeah, that's a really good movie. I love movies like that where you can watch it a second time and catch all the clues.

Actually, since they're talking about variation, it can't be calculated on an individual basis. That kind of number is going to have to come from the upper bound of a confidence interval. Still, you're not going to see something anywhere near that high with genetic data on obesity. I'll stick with my idea that the 80% figure was randomly pulled otu of someones backside. And this brings out part of the problem that many in here have refused to acknowledge. Certain people, for whatever reason, have more time than others. If you have two people with identical genetic profiles, working the same exact desk job, but one works 40 hours and the other 80 hours. Who is far more likely to be in better shape? Yeah, diet and physical activity is the key culprit, but there are other reasons factoring into why one would be more active and eat better than the other.

I'm sure this is going to be a stupid question, but I have to ask. What's the difference between "1" and "R" in the years column? Are the 1's players who haven't actually appeared on an active roster (previous practice squad and IRed players)?

I scanned over the links too. I'd say it's pretty telling that there wasn't one that went along with that 80% number they threw out there. Yeah, I'm sure there are people out there who are so unlucky to have drawn the genetic short straw and will struggle with the obesity battle, but it's going to be a relatively small number. The 80% thing, like you said, is a dangerous number to throw out there because people will think they have no chance. I've been working with people lately who are putting together surveys about the genetic risk of diabetes. The big question is always how these people are going to respond if they're told they're high/low risk. So many people seem to think it's set in stone since they have no idea what risk means.

I was thinking more along the lines of guys who have played multiple roles, but I have to comment on Jackman. It seems like I hear more complaints about him than positive comments. But then again, maybe I watch too much Scrubs.

I'm sure for some theres also a bit of the "I want to keep them young forever" mentality.

All I really get out of that trailer is that it has a pretty solid cast. I really have no idea what to think beyond that. It did get me thinking of an old joke idea I used to throw around though. If there was an actor that you would consider to be the god of the dorks based in roles in scifi/action/comicbook movies, who would it be? A few people always came to mind immediately: -Patrick Stewart: he really hasn't done too much in a whille, but Captain Picard and Charles Xavier are 2 iconic characters -Ian McKellen: Gandalf and Magneto -Hugo Weaving: Agent Smith, his role in the Lord of the Rings movies, Megatron, V, and now this... he might take it based on pure volume -Christian Bale: might be able to make a run in a couple years Those are always the names I think of right away, but I'm sure I missed a few roles. Who am I missing here?

The bolded number is absurd. While is a lot of interesting and meaningful stuff in that link, I'd love to know where they pulled that number from.

Hmmm, maybe it's time to bring last year's game out again so I can finish my first be a pro season. I'm in the conference finals but never got around to playing it again.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I've gone on my own in the past. In the past, when I've had nothing planned, if someone said "hey, let's go see this", I'd usually go. Hell, that's how I ended up seeing that piece of garbage Snakes on a Plane. It was something to do. I just have no interest in District 9 right now, so it's not something that would immediately come to mind if I had some free time.

I never thought I'd see someone with an Iron Maiden avatar plugging a romance novel. Mark, District 9 still is not catching any interest from me. I might see it if someone else says "hey, let's go see that", but I can't see me being the one to suggest it right now.

Yeah, I was steering clear thanks to having no clue about the age of the people in question.

I think it's pretty telling that only 2 of these shows are on network tv. But anyway, any of the non-network shows I watch seem to run relatively short seasons. That adds to the mess. And while we're on this subject, another thing you really don't see much of anymore: prime time reruns on network television (other than in the summer)

Mark, you might be happy to know that I'm somewhat reconsidering my stance from the start of this thread. I might give Inglorious Basterds a shot. Maybe I'll wait until September though just to prove a point.

The whole thread is based on exaggeration, so I'll stick by what I said. Yes, there's good stuff out there, but scripted tv isn't all that far behind the sitcoms. There is far less out there today than there was 15-20 years ago.

Does he and the family have to pick up any remaining medical charges as opposed to the government/jail picking them up? That could be considered a form of punishment. Yeah, it's still not equal to the crime (what is?), but it's something.

Maybe he tried to rip the bill into the exact proportions that would give the driver his $3.80 and the Kanes would get back their $1.20. You do realize that you've benn "just plain making crap up" throughout this thread as well, right? The whole thing about accidentally setting the locks the wrong way? (may have been sabrespace, I'm too lazy to read back)

Or any sitcom (or scripted tv show)

Now I don't know the posters around here as well as some others do, but this is really coming across to me as a "well since you're going to accept one extreme as what really happened, I'm going to assume the opposite extreme just to prove a point" type attitude.

See, that's the problem here. I haven't seen one person here who is saying the Kane's did nothing wrong. People like you in the crucify Kane camp have treated the whole thing as black and white, with the cabbie's word being gospel. Anyone who has posted against that have been treated the issue like it was shades of gray. Both sides screwed up and made mistakes and I know that I personally have never said a word that would indicate that Kane is guilt free on the whole thing. I just mention college kids since that's the exact age that Kane is. And many of these stories are far worse than this incident. But since this was the only one made public, it's Kane that everyone wants to throw under the bus, rather than realizing these things go way beyond just Pat Kane.

They can also work out a trade with the team who claimed the player, right?

Ahhh the stories I've heard about so many college players.

Kind of like muting Britney Spears videos back in the day (videos, there's another one for your "things you never see" thread). There has to be a limit though on how bad someone sounds.

Please tell me your wife is deaf.