unclevlad

I will on occasion do a diet Dr. Pepper when I hit Whataburger for lunch...not terribly common.  Won't do regular soft drinks any more;  not after I found out my blood sugar was SEVERELY high some years back.  It's totally well controlled now...but that's by ditching the stupid crap like sugar bombs of various sorts.  Doesn't mean the sweet tooth is 100% gone.  BUT...the price still seems crazy high, especially given that it's not something I want that much anyway.  So I usually do water.

Back in the day, I remember Cherry Coke...TOO sweet...and Coke with Lime.  Loved that.  So I might be willing to try the ginger lime.  Mango and orange?  Ehhh...I like mango in a morning smoothie but I dunno if the flavor would harmonize.  Orange could work, but lime has the *pop*, if you'll pardon the pun, to play properly.

On 10/24/2018 at 11:28 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

The modern weapon that would decide that would be information and surveillance, which the government very nearly has a monopoly on. We won't see an event of that magnitude any time soon.

No, likely not.  But a major upswing in terrorist activity?  In events that go from Angry to BLOODY in seconds?

One thing that's important to note is the fundamental changes in attitudes since the 60s.  Demonization and dehumanization of one's enemies is the rule.  I submit that this makes lethal attacks...be it gun attacks, a la Vegas or Pulse or Parkland, or the ongoing mail bombs.  They probably don't have a lot in common, but I'm suggesting that the incident rate explosion is itself a point to consider.  Can't blame any one thing for this...altho I would give greater weight to Trump's tactics, simply because as the President, his embrace of attack speech and demonizing carries much greater than normal cachet.

No, we're not at 60s level of violence *yet*.  I still believe things are worse now.  Yes, the 60s had it boil through and out into the open.  Right now, it's staying in its boiler, getting hotter and hotter.  But worse, the boiler's sucking everyone in.  

There are some differences.  There is no Martin Luther King, advocating for radical change through peaceful means...because we drag anyone who tries that path through the cesspool.  Almost no one listens to any voice that isn't fundamentally an echo of their own....or, they are themselves another echo of yet another demagogue.  Politics was not at the level of afternoon talk radio in the 60s.

I might also add:  consider who got assassinated in the 60s...and what THAT says.  Also remember the root cause of much of the violence of the 60s was that state and local governments were actively and illegally practicing discrimination.  There are some parallels with things like Black Lives Matter, where it's viewed that some local governments are still doing so, through their police departments.  

One thing that's really scary about Trump the manipulator is that he is VERY good at recasting any issue into the form he wants.  And he keeps everyone off balance, chasing this and that around and always responding to the crisis of the moment...which means the real  issues are lost.  David Eddings has an exchange between Garion and Zakath in one of the Mallorea books.  Garion wonders at Zakath's unpredictability.  Zakath's response is along the lines of "always keep the cockroaches scurrying;  it keeps them off balance and prevents them from consolidating any meaningful power base."  That's how he handled his Court.  Yeah, well, that fits Trump perfectly, IMO.  

And gee, if we approach the violence of the 1860s???  With modern weapons?????  It's gonna be sooooo much worse......

24 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Broncos cut Chad Kelly

Moronic freaking git....  Events sound seriously juvenile too.  

Even league min is more than he'll make in any other job he'll ever have, and backup QB just needs to show decent promise to keep a roster spot.

My, my...Deadspin had another article on Kelly, but even more amusing was this piece:

https://deadspin.com/and-now-jon-gruden-is-losing-the-locker-room-1829967182

Speculations along those lines had crossed my mind, based on the Khalil Mack boot, and some of the other stories.  

Yeah, ya gotta feel kinda bad for Mahomes, that voice.....  But hey, considering where he's at right now....I'd take the voice.

Giants, Giants, Giants...pathetic.  Shurmur's defending going for 2 at 20-12 because that's what the win probabilities actually dictate doing.  I wanna see the numbers;  this is an area where you can easily screw up the analysis.  You have to look at all 4 cases...make the kick, miss the kick, make the 2 point, miss the 2 point...with probabilities of each event, and what that all does to the win probability.  If going for 2 maximizes the expected win probability...ok.

But back to back sneaks, too...and on the second, the Falcon LBs were assuming it.

Last, I totally agree with SVP.  Why are we stuck with the Giants on prime time?  They are one of the worst teams in the league.  Slap em on the Sunday early game so they can be ignored.  The ratings for this dog will likely be godawful.

2 hours ago, Armory said:

 

That's kinda how I feel.  I was done rooting for somebody when the Astros got bumped.  I'm still going to watch the games because it's the World Series dammit and it's a long cold winter until Spring Training.  I guess I'll be rooting for good baseball.

Define "good baseball."
 

Cuz it's mostly gonna be wait for pitchers to make mistakes, then MASH the ball.  And I fully expect that strikeouts will continue to outnumber hits.  Tedious, slow games with pitchers slowing games down to a crawl.

On Hilary...

As early as summer 2015, I actually liked the thought of Trump winning the Republican nomination because I felt any Dem could beat him........EXCEPT Hilary.  She'd energize the Republicans, she was an easier target, she really doesn't come across well.  The last, I think, was the clincher...she was in fact a terrible campaigner.  Had she won, some things would be different but the gridlock in DC would have been horrific.  I suspect we'd be in a government shutdown right now, for example.

On the global warming, yeah.  It doesn't apply to all of them, but a good chunk of evangelicals simply turn their brains off.  The Bible holds all truth that matters;  their brains don't have shutters, they're tucked inside a neutronium shell.  

And yes, lots of people have no idea of the scale of things.  Like how the US burns, IIRC, about 20 MILLION gallons of gasoline every day.  They also don't understand how the system works...how little carbon there actually is, as a percentage of the atmosphere.  (I had a notion of a character who drew in and recombined the gases in the air, to make stuff like Kevlar, or creating a graphene-sheet armor.  On the one hand, all you need is carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen for a LOT of useful materials.  Turns out...to get 1 gram of carbon, you need 7 cubic meters of air.)  So it doesn't take that much to start messing things.  Plus, over the centuries, we've extensively altered the biosphere.  We've stripped the rich, complex old growth forests which had extraordinarly dense biospheres.  And this has happened on a scale of thousands, even tens of thousands of square miles.  So we have massive output of carbon that had been, by and large, locked in place for millenia, AND a reduced absorption capacity.

It's pessimistic to say this, but...the best case I can see is that the measures we're allowed to take are always a step shy of what's needed when they are allowed.  I simply don't think we'll bite the bullet hard enough to make the moves that will be needed.  And I do mean best case....because in all honesty, I think we're 2 steps shy of what's needed NOW.  The situation is only getting worse, and this at a time when we're even more divided than ever.

Buckeyes CRASH AND BURN!!!!

That alone makes it a great day.

Unfortunately, I still need Notre Dame to lose.  That's next up.  

BCS standings are starting to become worth talking about....

4 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Edit: Also, I think the analytical people are guilty of "assuming the would be bunter will get automatically get a hit"  (at least at a much higher percentage than they should).  Hitting away, wasn't necessarily a bad strategy either,  but double plays and strikeouts do hurt, despite the denial of such (well they do hate DPs, but Ks matter whether they choose to believe or not)

 

Nope.  Not in the broad analysis.  For average number of runs scored in an inning...that might be limited to the first 2 in the inning getting on.  Cuz if not, things get a little screwy.  Single walk, HR, single, walk...recreates 1st and 2nd, none out.  But the runs for the inning are skewed.  Now, for the % chance of scoring a run...THAT you can take any time the given situation arises.  That's a simple Yes or No.  It's not saying the non-bunter is getting a hit, it does allow for the fact that he might hit into a double play.  

An aspect about the Belanger point...there are virtually no Belangers out there any more.  Maybe backup catchers, but .220 slap hitters simply don't make it to majors.  There's no such thing as a defensive position, either, the way there used to be.  VERY debatable if an Ozzie or Belanger would actually stick on a major league roster;  that's how much defense has been devalued and offense overvalued.  Heck, look how long Mark Reynolds has stuck around, despite a very poor average, striking out in over 1/3 of his ABs, and being a notably below average defensive player.  He can hit the ball out...nuff said.

On the bunt, nice story here.  Scroll down for the table.

https://batflipsandnerds.com/2018/10/06/analytics-and-its-effects-on-the-mlb-the-bunt/

So, runners on 1st and 2nd, none out.  Probability of scoring at all...61%.  If you sac bunt, it's 2nd and 3rd with 1 out.  Probability of scoring goes to 67%.
 

THAT ASSUMES IT WORKS.  But that's only 1 outcome.  Poor bunt, runner is thrown out at 3rd...probability drops to 40% with 1st and 2nd and 1 out.  Another case:  batter pops out, or somewhat more likely, fouls off a couple attempts then strikes out.   If this happens 1 time in 4, you're seeing no net gain.  Now, combine this with the fact that almost no one can bunt competently, and the failure rate is quite probably much higher than 25%.  

Now, there are cases where you should.  A generally weak hitter coming up?  Manager might bunt there, that's true.  BUT, quite often they...panic?  Take the easy way out?  Think only in the moment?  Whatever.  QUITE often they send up the pinch hitter, despite the MANY downsides involved.

Mind, it could be worse.  The flip side here is in college baseball, where many older coaches seemingly ALWAYS sac bunt...even with their 3 hitter with a .380 average, in a game that's already 5-4 in the top of the 4th.  (I.e., Runs Will Score!)  I HATE this;  ok, it fits with my bias, that college coaches quite often are little tin-plated martinets who are looking after their own interests first.

So, I was channel flipping, figuring which college game to keep on.  On one of em, they had the camera in the booth.  Lo and behold...DeMarco Murray.  Huh.  Wow.  What's he doing in a booth already?  Quick transition.  

So ok, he'd lost too much, got cut, chose to retire.  Wow.  How old????  He's just 30.  Wonder how much he made over his career, brief as it was?

Led me to this:

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/7/13/17570142/demarco-murray-retirement-means-for-nfl-running-backs

Note, too, that DAMN few running backs get taken in the first round these days, and with the CBA as it is, if you're not a first round pick, your rookie deal is not that great.  Combine that with the fact that running back is still a big position at the college level, and there's still QUITE a few seriously good ones at that level, and the story's pretty clear:  avoid running back if you really want to Make It in the NFL.  

18 hours ago, Old Man said:

I hear the Chargers may be an exception.

Saw that story too.  Which suggests one of two things:

1.  They're going down the tubes completely because they'll be on a relative shoestring.  OR,

2.  The owners who scream for new stadia are liars, frauds, and bloodsucking leeches.  The TV revenue covers all sins.

Boy, honestly, when I saw Ultra-Human, Superman did not cross my mind.  Batman, Captain America...those were what came to mind.  Not any one physical thing is better, but most are.  But no powers per se;  I don't count gadgets or Cap's shield.  Superman's Tank, Unstoppable, Flyer, Speedster, Sensemonger (an important overlooked type...ESPer, clairvoyant, but XRay, Telescopic, Microscopic, AND Super-hearing....he's a sensemonger) and even a bit of Blaster, altho he rarely uses it.

There definitely are similarities between Gunner -- Weapons Master -- Martial Artist, with that relative positioning.  My read, if all 3 categories are on the table:  Gunner is ranged with foci, Weapons Master is foci with a general implication of no range (but not always), and Martial Artist is no range, mostly no foci (but weapons can be secondary).  

First choice would be a blaster who can fly, but that's not an option.  So, voted for sorcerer...because it's the only one on the list with comprehensive versatility.

I don't want to be too critical on the poll, but...what's the real difference between the Blaster and the Gunner?  Between the Tank and the Unstoppable?  And you even note that the Weapon Master is a subset of the Martial Artist.

From nfl.com:  

Quote

 

McCoy's seat was scorching hot even before Thursday night's turnover-filled dud. The Cardinals own one of the worst offenses in the league, highlighted by an unimaginative, stale, droning scheme. In a league of high-flying creative attacks, McCoy was stuck in a dreary past.

<snip>

Quote

 But the complete offensive ineptitude, lack of preparedness, and an inability to put the talent that is on the roster in spots to make plays falls on McCoy.

 

Cards are still just 30th in total points right now....with 7 games in the bag, to most teams having 6, or even only 5.

And they're saying the same thing about his chances of catching on as an OC elsewhere...his track record says "forget it!"  Yeah, it's not like any of us really track junk like this, but booted in mid-season 2 years in a row sure feels like something pretty unique.  Not in a good way.  

Well, Leftwich now gets a no-pressure long audition.  Cards' season's already flushed away, and he can hardly do worse.

Well, come on.  2 pick-sixes and an opponent's offense that needs to be given that nice white coat for self-protection DO tend to make that a bit easier.  I'll grant I didn't even remember the game was on;  was watching the Astros disappoint.  Le bummer...  I mean no disrespect to the Broncos...but that was saying more about Arizona.  Or maybe about ()*@#$!@ TNF.......  

Partly Big Energy...don't forget coal, Old Man...and partly a refusal to spend money in any manner that doesn't lead to making money, or restricts in any manner business from doing whatever the F it wants to do, damn the consequences.  It's why the EPA has been, if not gutted, at least cut well back.   They want to continue to wreck everything because it's the cheapest, fastest, and most profitable approach.  Oh, 25 years from now there's gonna be problems?  Well then it's not our problem now.  Sux to be them.

And heat-related deaths is only part of the issue.  Sea water surface temps rise, which promotes larger and stronger storms.  If low pressure fronts hit that hot, energetic air over land, tornadoes become stronger and more common.  Major hail, of the kind that flattens anything growing over multiple square miles.  More uplift creates larger thunderheads;  more energy means more severe lightning storms.

Brewers/Dodgers in 13th as I type.

Gonna go out a bit on a limb and say whoever can win this, wins the series.  Why?  Brewers are taxing their bullpen;  the longer this goes, the worse that'll be.  That's OK *if* they can win this one and go up 3-1.  If Dodgers win, they've got Kershaw, and while he didn't have a great start, we can also expect he's not gonna get hosed by, what, 5 errors?  (Passed balls count as errors.)  So if they win this one, then tomorrow as I'd bet were I so inclined, they're up 3-2.  Going back to Milwaukee isn't *that* much of an edge.  

Going into bottom 13th.  32 strikeouts.  13 hits.  5 hours so far.  Modern baseball at its finest.

Oh and side point.  I'm beginning to really dislike Machado.  Ask me, he's a DIRTY player.  See the play where he quite clearly stutter-stepped AND changed his line, so his foot clipped the 1st baseman's ankle?  And plays sliding into 2nd have been borderline to VERY suspect.  EDIT:  OK, Machado just got a single, and he and the Brewers guy just had a chat that seemed friendly enough.  The play did NOT look good, tho.

It's only 2-1.  I think this is gonna be a long series.  

Well, ok, I hope it will be.  The Sox certainly CAN be overwhelming, and the Sox bullpen is still shaky as heck.

20 minutes ago, assault said:

(Scott Morrison is the current Australian Prime Minister. Pauline Hanson is a far-Right scammer.)

 

Scott Morrison says it's 'regrettable' his senators backed Pauline Hanson's 'it's OK to be white' motion

The more I see about Aussie politics, the more I realize it would NOT be a place to move to.

Although the alt-right is rearing its ugly head back up in many places, as I understand it.

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

Senate Republican leader astonished that last year's tax cuts for the wealthy didn't pay for themselves; proposes cutting Medicare and Social Security to pay for them in a move that surprises no one

Not surprising at all.  Gives me hope...because if there's one large group that might be considered single-issue-dominated, it's us retired people, with Soc Sec and Medicare.  Because it is literally the financial lifeline for many.  Maybe, just maybe, we will see a chamber switch sides.  The downside?  If we don't...I think the legislative rampage will start next year.

Hey, he's got a great marching slogan.

Alt-Knight is Alt-Right!!!!

Hooo....centrist is one thing, but there were more red flags with Kavanaugh than were on Florida's beaches last week.  

Political ploy to cut your own political throat?  I don't see it.  Near certainty to alienate a LARGE bloc of women voters, who even if they don't vote for the other candidate, probably then just won't cast a vote at all for that race.  NYT polls are showing a growing, now fairly significant, lead for the Republican.  So the notion of it being a political ploy sounds like total BS.

12 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

We had a particularly egregious example in my US House district. Four years ago, one candidate didn't even bother with ads based on position or platform, she went straight into mud-slinging. She ended up winning the election (in large part because there are too many people in this district who'll vote for any damned fool with an 'R' after their name).

 

That's not par for the course...but it's damn close.  It *is* par for the course when it's a PAC ad, rather than a candidate's ad.  To be sure, it may be selective memory, but Republican PAC ads always seem to be nothing but fearmongering and/or personal attacks.  Democratic PAC ads aren't immune;  not saying that.  My sense, tho, is that the Republican PAC ads sink 2 or 3 levels deeper into the cesspool.  

8 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

She's from Oklahoma. Why is this a surprise? 

CES 

The point is Trump denied it, and is now denying he ever made an issue of it.  Which is also utterly unsurprising.