Taro T

C-I-L-L my land-lord.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it. Based on this, I would expect the likelihood of a strike to be minimal. It's that line of thinking from your last paragraph that made me think a strike's possible.

The logic is that the TV contracts are structured such that the big money comes for the playoff games (that's the way it works in other sports, I expect it works that way for the NFL as well). The playoffs are essentially only money for the owners as the players have already been paid their full salaries and are only getting their playoff bonus money at that point. For the most part, the players get (relative to their regular salaries) nearly nothing for them. A strike does not give the owners the same thing as a lockout because they have already paid the players if a strike occurs near the end of the season but they haven't received all their TV (and other playoff related) revenues yet. That is the point in time when they have their greatest leverage. At the beginning of a season is when the owners have their greatest leverage. Let me back up 1 step and ask another question. If the players and league don't come to an agreement on a CBA, just how far off into the future can this injunction against a lockout continue? Only through this season, through another one, indefinitely? If the players can force the league to let them play (provided the league doesn't "shut itself down"), then I'd see the logic in stating the players have nothing to gain by striking. If that isn't the case (and that doesn't seem logical to me on the surface), I could see scenarios where the players might strike (or at minimum threaten to) to gain negotiating leverage w/ the league. I truly doubt either side wants to see this all get decided in court (as the stakes are so high and the outcome is uncertain), so if the players were to believe they could get a better deal by threatening to strike, I could see it happening. I'm not saying a strike WILL happen, I'm just not seeing why it necessarily won't / wouldn't happen.

How sad. For real. My immediate reaction was to laugh and then shake my head. At least it's better than the "We're Lookin' Good" they ran ~90.

Why would it not happen if they've been playing all year without a CBA? The MLB players killed an entire postseason in '94 and the NHL players pulled off a successful strike in the spring of '92. It seems to me that they'd have a 3rd option if they were reformed as a union - continue negotiating w/ the owners. I wouldn't expect to see that happen, but it is an available option. But if they weren't happy w/ the way things were looking in the court system, I'm not seeing why they wouldn't consider a strike an option. I wouldn't be surprised to see the NFL close up shop, at least temporarily in the Spring, if things haven't been resolved by then. At that time the leverage would be shifted back towards the owners, so I don't see why a players strike 'would simply never happen' when they would gain leverage.

No, I'm saying that after the players have received (nearly) all of their paychecks (if it works out that it's legal) they might strike right before the playoffs start. Basically like the MLB players did back in '94. If they were going to strike, it'd probably be in early December, so there would be time to get a contract done before the playoffs had to be pitched. I'd be very surprised if the players ever struck after the playoffs had actually begun as it would be PR suicide. At the beginning of the season, before anybody's received a paycheck, the owners have the bulk of the leverage. The players decertified to take that away. At the end of the season, after the players have been paid and the networks are looking forward to their playoff ratings, the players have the bulk of the leverage. I'm not about to try to learn the minutia of labor law, but was curious as to whether the players could recertify w/out having a contract in place and if so I don't see much stopping them from striking. They could always drop their lawsuit if they think the circumstances are more favorable at the negotiating table. Thanks for the response. If the players can recertify at their own discretion, it seems to me that a strike is still viable if the injunction against the lockout holds. I don't believe the players want to nuke the NFL. (It's a golden goose for them too.) I just think that if an agreement is made when the owners are under the more severe duress (either due to a lawsuit working its way through the courts or a strike/ threatened strike) then the bigger guys w/ the huge debt loads will have been the ones to crack and there is a greater likelihood that it'll be tough for the Bills to compete in the new landscape. (Kind of the way the bigger guys w/ the huge debt loads cracked last time and carried the bulk of the other owners with them.)

Moorman?

Not claiming that making the playoffs in the NHL is a particularily noteworthy accomplishment, but several of your points disparaging it and the Sabres seem to be of the 'pot meet kettle' variety. While being 1 of 16 in when there are only 14 out isn't impressive, it is far more impressive than being 1 of 8 in when there are only 2 of 10 out. 3 of the Bandits wins came during an era where the entire league was owned by the same individual and the Bandits and Wings had a distinct advantage in how players were distributed between teams. The Bandits had some incredible teams back then, but the deck was kind of stacked. And your fears about resources being diverted from the Bandits to the Sabres seem misplaced. Why would a billionaire take money out of a very low expense entity like the Bandits to improve the Sabres? Especially one that has the following the Bandits have? There aren't enough resources going to the Bandits currently to make a difference w/ the Sabres. If any changes occur w/ the Bandits, I'd expect they'll be positive. Time will tell, but I'd be very surprised to see Pegula being a bad thing for the Bandits.

You'll go 20 miles out of your way (10 out, 10 back) to save $10? So, apparently you aren't exaggerating when you state you don't put much value on your time.

Wow, you can multiply by 60. Who'd've thunk?

So the question then becomes, are 2 minutes out of your life worth the $1.20-$3 you save per fillup?

Interesting analysis. Thanks for the perspective. 2 questions: is there anything preventing the NFLPA recertifying at a later date (including while the lawsuits / negotiations are ongoing) if it so chooses? And, if the injunction is upheld and the lockout goes bye-bye, if the players recertify prior to an agreement being reached, what incentive do the players have to reach an agreement prior to January or so, when they have all been paid for the year but then they can hold out the threat of a strike which would cancel the Superbowl? It seems to me that D. Smith is very willing to play hardball, unless the owners capitulated big time I don't see why he'd pull that threat off the table. My concern in all of this is, I want to see an agreement (regardless of which side 'wins') in which the Bills remain viable long term in Buffalo. And I could see the owners with huge debt service on their brand new $1B stadiums being willing to throw owner unity out the window when the possibility of high outlays w/ no income streams start looking like reality to the 'big fish' when a recertified NFLPA starts chanting 'give us what we want or we strike.' I don't particularily care which side wins, I just don't want to end up having the Bills fans lose. I'd prefer it not come to it, but I'd much prefer to lose the 2011 season and have a system in place going forward that the Bills can not only exist but thrive, rather than have them play this year and be gone w/in the decade. If a strike isn't a plausible threat (presumably because there is no union to call a strike), I'd be more inclined to side w/ the players; but I haven't seen anyone address that possibility yet.

According to my friend that owns a gas station, though the rack price charged by the distributor changes daily, the station owner sets the pump price on his own after surveying what the nearby competitors are doing and where rack cost is headed. The distributor will assist the station owner in setting price if asked, but the owner has final say in retail price.

A calcium oxylate stone wouldn't be affected by cranberry juice. That's the really hard kidney stone that slices through the kidney as it moves towards the tube that takes it to the bladder; and that's the one that feels like you've been stabbed. The calcium oxylate has very low solubility (6.8 x 10-4 g/ 100g H2O @25C), so once you have one, it's either tearing it's way out or it needs to be broken up (via lithotripsy is a common method). I can believe that one is more painful than childbirth, and have been told that by a couple of women. (If childbirth is worse than that, then everybody should get mom something REALLY nice today.) A uric acid based stone is softer and is soluble (slightly soluble?, don't have data on that one) so it can be shrunk by drinking lots of fluids, which makes it easier to pass. That one feels like somebody punched you in the kidney, so I'd guess that it doesn't hurt as bad as childbirth. Don't know about the other types of stones, but those are the 2 big ones. Maybe the cranberry juice would help w/ some of the others. Vitamin C is very good at helping to prevent kidney stones, so an orange a day is helpful.

Thanks for the update.

I haven't seen any reports of WHICH ocean/sea he was dumped into. I'd guess that it was Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean, but they'd've easily been able to dump him someplace further away. If they have identified which crabs he is now feeding, my bad.

It was a home owner offed in a home invasion. Such a shame he wasn't using Brinks or ADT.

Or just smear a little 'x' or something along an edge of the mold.

Well, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the guy that got the info train started, and it appears he was, then waterboarding was involved.

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't see anything there except a recounting that Osama was killed in the compound near Islamabad and that no US troops were injured. Was there something particular in there that merited the ?

So, any word on how long SNL ends up using that bit to open Weekend Update?

Perhaps it could have shaken out that Obama could have caught flack had this particular attempt to get bin Laden not been successful, but I would have been very surprised. It stands to reason that we've been close to getting him on several occassions over the past near decade. Other than the 'noose around him in Tora Bora' we haven't heard much about any of those missions. I don't see why this one would have been materially different than the other unsuccessful attempts to get him, had it not been successful. Either way, Osama's gone on to his 72 Rosie O'Donnells and Obama and the rest of us should enjoy it right now and then get back to stay at work. There's still a lot to be done, but this was a good weekend.

I truly doubt that, simply because if he'd done something to mess up this particular attempt at offing Osama, we wouldn't have heard about it. It would have simply been another evening w/ no news about bin Laden's death/capture. Congrats definitely go out to the troops that (directly and indirectly) got this particular mission accomplished. It happened on Obama's watch, he'll also get credit for it appropriately.

Whatever. I hadn't seen a thread about this here and didn't realize there was a thread about this over on the OTW board. If the mods want to delete this thread because there's one going on the other board, that's fine. Very surprised at the way it went down, but think it's awesome. Per Obama, no drones and no US injuries. Again, cool.