birdog1960

if you want to get bogged down by semantics, so be it. pro·pose prəˈpōz/ verb 1. put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others. "he proposed a new nine-point peace plan" synonyms: put forward, suggest, submit, advance, offer, present, move, come up with, lodge, table, nominate "he proposed a solution" "this is a legitimate issue for us to look at" scotty, the wall, walker the definition is entirely consistent with what walker said. why don't you illustrate my error precisely?

I don't like whaley. no idea why he still has a job after the manuel pick and the Watkins trade. he's one of the few management leftovers from the Wilson bad old days. gotta think he had a say here. fred deserves better.

lighten up, francis! it's funny in an absurd kinda way, isn't it?

wow. why didn't anyone ever think of this before? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/walker-building-wall-along-canadian-border-legitimate-issue/ "This is why I sit on the beach up on Lake Superior in my lawn chair, .38 special in my jacket pocket - just waiting for those socialists to wash up on the beach... coming here to drink bland beer, to make our bacon round and Steal Our Women Folk!!! ...Someone needs to tell Scotty that in addition to a really really long wall, we will need a really really big net as well."

kinda fun, isn't it?

seems an apt analogy.

this distills pages and pages of posts by those you are arguing with. pretty awesome passage there. he doesn't tackle the question of why these folks hold these beliefs. in many cases, i'd be willing to bet they wouldn't do so well under such scenarios. for people that seem so motivated by self interest, that's counter intuitive. perhaps it's explained by grandiose delusions…narcissism is endemic here.

reminds me of smith/kapernick 2011-2012 (casell/taylor). the more i think about it, the more i like it. it worked out pretty well for SF.

nfl network analysts agree: cassel, tyrod and then manuel with tyrod running 9-10 plays per game a la kapernick initially in SF. just relaying the info.

between years 1 and 2 in med school, I did research under the chair of the biochem dept. I strongly considered doing an md/phd with him as my mentor. then one day in my second year he was gone. no longer on faculty at all. he'd fudged data and several papers were rescinded. he was a very bright man but he got carried away and made some major judgement errors. and he paid or it dearly. with his career. but his grad students and post docs have done some pretty amazing things. there have been multiple excellent papers published based on his ideas. understanding of his area of expertise has increased significantll and he is in part responsible for that. the consequences he suffered are likely deserved. but lets not pretend that just because a few scientists cheat that all science or even most science is useless. that's plain stupid.

"The scientific method is the most rigorous path to knowledge, but it’s also messy and tough. Science deserves respect exactly because it is difficult — not because it gets everything correct on the first try. The uncertainty inherent in science doesn’t mean that we can’t use it to make important policies or decisions. It just means that we should remain cautious and adopt a mindset that’s open to changing course if new data arises. We should make the best decisions we can with the current evidence and take care not to lose sight of its strength and degree of certainty. It’s no accident that every good paper includes the phrase “more study is needed” — there is always more to learn." I doubt you'd find a scientist that disagrees with this conclusion. I used to believe that this anti science stuff was apocryphal and sensationalized. you all have certainly cured me of that misbelief.

violence against those you disagree with. great

the answer to this seems obvious yet I had difficulty verbalizing it. and then it appeared: airbus and boeing actually produce products of intrinsic value. and people sometimes can build such items better in their garages - like steve jobs. the financial industry doesn't produce anything of intrinsic value (derivatives?....um, no). it plays a game for which it largely writes the rules. the steve jobs of the financial industry is bernie maddoff.

these losers: "It was like nothing happened — except for investors who had automatic “stop-loss” orders triggered by the brief fall. Those investors locked in heavy losses. “The retail guy got crushed,” sid Joe Saluzzi, partner at Themis Trading, a brokerage firm. “That shouldn’t be allowed.” i'm discussing again because the legitimized robbery is once again being publicized and was noticed enough that it had to be. this article mention five free ameritrade transactions as compensation. let me know when the losers in this scenario get paid back and by whom.

no. it's like requiring ikea to pay the same tariffs and meet the same safe product regulations as ethan allen. but lets assume that the cause for the discrepancy in pricing is not nefarious (for the sake of argument). what is going to be done to make the losers in this real life scenario whole? is the gov't gonna bail them out? vanguard? ishares? the stock exchange? nope. no one will.

that's like saying that if we're playing a game of monopoly and its your game then you can have special rules applied only to you. spending billions on buying advantages should not be required to level the playing field. a level playing field should be ensured regardless. especially when many of the billions used to build the cheating apparatus came out of the accounts of the unsuspecting, regular joe 401k investors . sorry, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a game. thank goodness it rarely works in golf. i'd quit if it did.

no. that the true mechanisms may not be disclosed.

it's "rocking the mutual fund industry" per the wsj but it's of no concern to the sophisticated, above the fray, internet super pros here. why should we believe the explanation from a paper dedicated to the very people responsible for so many financial disasters for the common man? not a group of people known for their candor, honesty and ethics. if it was systematic price manipulation, do you think we'll ever hear about it? one thing is clear, however. the financial industry has some of the best old maid players around. keynes was absolutely correct. it's even easier when cheating is allowed.

intersting. you answered before i fixed the broken link. so do those day traders include anyone that owned the vanguard etf mentioned or the is hares etf cited? i'm betting that includes some pretty average joes. and they dropped more than triple their individual components stocks. if you're ok with that then you're a bigger fool than even i imagined "the shares of the 100 companies that make up the PowerShares QQQ did not drop 17 percent. A similar break between an ETF and its stock basket was seen with the Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF; its 32 percent drop came as the underlying securities were down only 9 percent. That massive gap was an incredible profitmaking opportunity for someone, most likely a major player with the fastest computers and best algorithms."

the bigger news for us retail schmucks: the market is rigged. in other news, water is wet. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mini-flash-crash-trading-anomalies-on-manic-monday-hit-small-investors/2015/08/26/6bdc57b0-4c22-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html

firstly, you haven't linked to any of your sources. i'm particularly interested in the raptors claim. I've found national estimates of around 100 golden eagles in a year even at sites likely to be alarmist about this. secondly, even the highest estimates you quote pale in comparison to cat caused deaths of birds. it's still a 1000:1 ratio. given that, it would seem that turbines aren't a major threat to bird populations unless you propose that cats have recently had a huge population increase or have became 1000x more aggressive. as an aside, I had a dalmation once that killed birds occasionally. damndest thing. she would crawl on her belly apparently try to sneak up on them and occasionally get one. couldn't break her of it. getting eaten by a black and white spotted dog seems an evolutionary fail to me. maybe some bird population are destined for extinction based on natural selection alone.

presumably the bird carcasses would be fairly easy to quantify in and around turbines. scavengers could be factored in. it's really not difficult to study.

see there's the problem. it's not science. republicans generally aren't about science. and scientists generally aren't republicans. the science says that many more birds are killed by cats than turbines. but carly makes it into a soundbite and yall applaud. it's really the invers of science. 1/science= far right conservatism.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/wind-turbines-kill-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/. there seems to be considerable dispute on the relative threat to birds from various sources. should we outlaw cats and cell towers and they kill more birds?

yes, but her delivery was very impressive.