OCinBuffalo

Christ. Am I going to have to go Google the Federal budget, and figure out who has spent more $ on science(when, without even looking, I am near certain it is: the same, +/- a billion)? SameOldBills: If you want to be an advocate of science funding, advancement, whatever, etc.? Then you better be an immediate advocate of entitlement reform. And not this or that, full on entitlement reform. You have: no choice. You can't call yourself a scientist, and then reject fact. Fact: The "mandatory spending" of entitlements is precisely what is crowding out science spending. It's crowding out everything. If we don't get a handle on entitlements(and get rid of idiocy like Obamacare) out debt is going to be 100% of GDP in 2038. 100%, which means: no sciene at all. Fact: Between 2038 and now, if nothing is done, we are simply going to spend less on science every year, until we spend nothing at all on it. If there is no margin, then there can be no mission. Simple as that. We can talk about science/anti-science all day, if we don't spend anything, what does that matter? Fact: The other problem is defense, and no, this is not a Republican problem. Try closing a base/defense contractor factory in a Democrat's district/state sometime and see what happens. We've already seen what happens, over and over. This is an everybody problem, no different than entitlements is an everbody problem. (Btw, "mandatory" spending is ridiculous in a Federal Budget. Nothing should be mandatory except basic defense = readiness, law enforcement, and infrastructure, everybody else should have to line up and submit their budgets for approval, and be prepared to not get, like everybody else in the country does)

Gentlemen, the highest propensity for sacks occurs from: putting the other team in 2nd/3rd and long, repeatedly. Next, it comes from: scoring a lot of points on offense, forcing the other team to play catch up, and therefore have to pass more than they want to pass. Bruce Smith et al were able to tee off on offenses, largely because those offenses found themselves down 14-0 in the first quarter of the game, and had to play catch up for the rest of it. A more recent example: the Colts with Peyton manning. Their entire Defense was predicated on playing from ahead, and stopping the pass. IF they got behind, were even, and had to deal wtih the run, they usually met with less sucess.

Assume we have to get up to #4 to get watkins, then a trade looks like this: We get #4, #100(4th round), and #231(7th) We give #9, #41(2nd), #137(5th), and #169(6th) That's an even money trade, down to the penny, in terms of the DVC. See here: http://www.calculato...-pick-value.php

OT GREG ROBINSON AUBURN DE STEPHON TUITT NOTRE DAME ILB CHRIS BORLAND WISCONSIN ILB YAWIN SMALLWOOD UCONN QB AARON MURRAY GEORGIA WR T.J. JONES NOTRE DAME CB WALT AIKENS LIBERTY Astro gets that, and I get this, and, "this" is what I am afraid of. This is a BPA oriented draft, and we don't hit the needs very well. We are always ahead of the TEs, then behind the OGs. This is why I want to trade down. We're never even close on WR. The only thing this does is get us LB. At 1: BPA Don't I have to take Robinson? He was rated 6th, and Watkins was long gone. At 2: BPA #3 It was this guy, or a slew of CB/S. With the new D, don't I have to take a DE? At 3: BPA At 4: #2 BPA The guy ahead was a OT. So, why not? At 5: BPA At 6: #4 BPA, but, here we are 6, and I still haven't added a pass catcher, and this guy is 5' 11" but WTF else can I do here?) At 7: BPA

Who gets the ramifications of this? What is Treasury doing giving a heads up to IRS, on something like this? Why is this anywhere near Treasury's radar? But, more importantly, this is not how large organizations behave in the wild. Not even close. Major WTF happening on my radar here. Nobody would be sending an email like this, from one "division" to another, and openly use the term "off plan" unless they were directed to from above, or knew they were safe in doing it, because they had approval. Speaking, without that approval, never mind committing it to paper = fired.So, there's no way in hell that this Ruth Madrigal sends this email without her boss knowing, unless she is a plant/rogue. Next, this appears to be a joint effort, that has been previously discussed? Now we are either talking a conspiracy(legal term) between 2 rogue employees at 2 different departments( 1% chance), or, this is the smoking gun that shows this was an INTER-departmental communication, supporting an inter-departmental policy. One Department doesn't set policy for another. Inter-departmental policy only emanates from: The office of the Big Boss. It may not have been Obama, but given this? It has to be somebody in the WH, at the very least. 2 people from 2 difference major entities, just don't think up and do this kind of thing on their own. They do not. It goes against every organzational and cultural norm. As I said: that's not how bureaucracy operates in the wild. Linking 2 departments, operating together, on this agenda? Busted! Or, somebody's going to need to explain this, for days, to get me to buy it.

Well, one of you is right. First to prove it gets a cookie.

This is opposite year for me. It's also bizzaro year. I want to trade down, and I don't want to use any of our top 3 picks on a DB. Like Marrone said, "people think you start with the defensive line and work back, but that's not true. You start with the back and work forward." So, there you go. That is competent defensive coaching, in every sport on this planet, and I'm sure it's true for sports on other planets as well. The thing is: I'm happy with who we have in the back, provided we can keep Byrd. So, I'd like to trade down, get some Gs, and another LB/TE/WR....whoever the BPAs are. If we can get Woods/Kiko in the 2nd, we can do it again this year. I'd love to trade down to 13/14 and take Ebron or Mike Williams, use the extra seconds on BPAs, etc. The trouble with all of this: likely BPA, at our picks, doesn't fit with our LB/G/WR plan exactly. The best G may go in round 1, but he's a reach to take him any earlier than 20, etc. So, I dunno. The good news: we have a lot of options this year. The bad news: options means consternation for this board. Lots and lots of consternation.

I agree, spot on. The behavior you've referred to is begging to form a pattern. Good short term moves, but with a definite eye on the long term. The prhase "hot pockets" hasn't been used here in a long time, but, I think it's time to haul it out: none of this has anything in common with a "hot pocket" solution. Robey is an effect, of the cause, that is the leash being taken off our D line, Kiko, and whatever LB I assume will be added. In order fo Robey to continue his blitzing ways, and for them to produce the same results, the offense has to continue to be so scared schitless of the rest of our guys, that they don't have the resources left to devote to Robey. That means: they don't have the resources in the coaches offices, or the players film room, the week before, they don't have the resources left after they've accounted for everybody else, to account for Robey in the gameplan, and then? They don't have the resources on the field, when the ball is snapped, to account for Robey, because they've spent them on everybody else. So, they leave Robey in the wind....and you get your effect.

Dude, as I've said for quite some time now, this was never about science, this is about $, so yeah, it's about politics. This is about some scientists sitting in first class seats on airplanes, for the first time in their lives, (which I blatantly stole from here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/) because they gave wealthy Democrat donors the vehicle they need to impose something they had no chance of winning at the ballot box. Obama's 2009 inaguration speech struck me as odd: "We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost" Forget the health care part, that's not this thread. Look at he first part: what does that imply? I hadn't realized, that in 2008, we'd suddenly turned our back on science, such that it needed to be "restored". I don't recall the Bush years as being anti-science. Do you? So WTF is this then? I'm fairly convinced this is code for "we will pay off every scientist of every stripe, who feeds/supports our agenda". The health care thing is just there to throw us off. The link I posted is largely a reiteration of what many have been saying here for years...the only real difference is, we don't get published/paid to do this. However, the fact that some scientists are now playing Internal Affairs cops...that's new, and telling.

That's pretty good. But, does it really beat what keepthefaith said? I dunno. Also it's defeated by: "OK, let's talk numbers. We had 30 million uninsured before Obamacare, and we're going to have 31 million uninsured as a result of Obamcare, what are we getting for what we are paying? Speaking of paying, most of the middle class pays more, under Obamacare. How does that help the middle class? And, my soon to be retired father(mother/whoever) is paying for birth control and pre-natal care under Obamacare, yet we are told this "controls costs". Apparently Democrats used the "new math" when they designed this fiasco." Sorry, but what I said above, and what keepthefaith said, probably beats you. See how I play to the "I hate my boss when he talks numbers" crowd here, and I end with distrust of "math" especially when it comes from you? The cost control thing is a bit of a distortion, but not that far off. To illustrate further: It's a tossup between the 30/31 million thing, and this: (http://www.nationalj...ortion-20140205) for most damning, empirically. If you are a thinking person, the above is Raid, it kills Obamacare dead. But, who the hell is going to try to win an election with that? The above is something Mitt Romney would go with, and lose. I'd go with what I wrote above, it's simple, and even a moron understands it.

I wonder what % of the American people actually know this. Not "laugh when everybody else is laughing", but actually know this. I have no idea what happened to Maher either. I remember him saying he didn't want "compassionate conservatives", he wanted his conservatives to be the daddy, and stop democrat mommy from spending all the money. That is sexist, or something bad/not PC, but at least it's funny. It seems like ever since he said that...somebody got to him, or something, because it's been all downhill ever since. My favorite is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYF1iy1_-vc Maher, and the turds in that audience, will never be able to live that down. They are permanently owned.

3 things: 1. As Tom said somewhere, and he's right: it's not fraud to run a RAD/XP approach, but it is fraud to present a mock up as working, production code. However, Tom didn't say: the reason you run a RAD approach, and not a waterfall, is to prevent the client from holding up your entire project, by being unable/refusing to give you key requirements. The fundamental tenet of iterative is that you don't plan/write future code now, because it's requirements are likely to change between now, and "future". Then, there's the other side: what if you iterate off into the weeds and never get the core design right? ....and now we have yet another pointless, airport bar argument. Knowing how/when to apply the right approach is an art, not a science, and requires talent, not necessarily training or experience. A "certified project manager" is about as relevant and useful as a "certified symphony composer". There's always a time to say "methodology be damned, we need to do X", and that time is usually 2 days into it. For anyone that wants to call that cowboy, hang out in a airport bar, call it cowboy, and prepare for your beating. You'll soon find that running a project for Joe's Accounting Firm and Flower Shop, is not the same as running one for GM. Which...is why Accenture is running things for the Feds now. 2. Question: what are the odds on the FBI actually taking this seriously, given their recent propensity to "investigate" the IRS so weakly/get "directed" by the Justice department? 3. Oregon being in deep trouble has been around a while. I've heard Maryland is much, much worse, and involves definite fruad and corruption. I know an IT chick who knows an IT guy, etc. I think it's 3 deep, but even if I throw away 50% of it, the remainder is bad.

I've read about a few. Of course I have no way of verifying what I've read. But, Dershowitz seems to a level-headed guy, sure he comes at this from his own POV, but, he comes across as reasonable. One thing I know for sure: the Innocence Project has proven over 100 people innocent with DNA(EDIT not just of capital murder, lots of crimes). I have never heard of them making wild claims. They just stand behind their numbers. This whole thing is difficult. It's easy to just phone it in and say the boilerplate on this, I think it's important not to, because we are talking about life/death. It's the same thing for me with abortion. I don't see either as black and white at all. There's no consistency, for every story you have, somebody has another, etc. Stats are practically a waste of time, because each story has it's own circumstances, and they matter. We can't throw anything away as an "outlier". Each situation matters, as much as the next. I guess if I had to come down on it: I'd say, both the death penalty and abortion should be options, because there are circumstances where both are the right call, and unless you are personally involved in/affected by those circumstances, it's none of your business, or mine, so it's best we stay out of it. Unless, we are presented with information we can't ignore, like late term abortion Gosnell disgusting behavior, or things like the innocence project. But again, it's all asymetrical. This is why we have judges, and a legal system in general. It's equity vs morality in some ways, but in other ways it isn't. You can say both abortion and the death penalty are immoral. However, I might say, a solution to a problem, that is massively inequitable, is also immoral. If the death penalty/abortion is the only solution that is equitable, then restricting them is immoral.

As I've said, whatever you have to say hardly matters now. 8th grade girl's club is far too hilarious. The fact that you are talking about skimming, and the reason why you say this now, is tempting to make something of, but, it's merely a 1 day distraction. Nope, I'm gonna stay focused as I have said above. This whole thing is far too funny, and bizarre, to be distracted by lamedick "I was just skimming, so that's why I didn't recognize my own post" banter. That's as pathetic as it is soon to be: irrelevant.

Oh Jesus Christ on a crutch. Here we go. It's always "they're gonna kill that poor woman" with you, isn't it? You really think CVS, is going to do anything at all that presents a PR risk for them? CVS would rather give away free X-rays for a year, than have a doc like you go on 60 minutes and complain about them. That's their solution btw, they'd give away free Xrays, marginalize you until you go away, and allow them to keep filling the scripts, which is where the real $ is. If you were smart, rather than complaining: you'd set up a business that manages everything you just said, partner with CVS, make deals with local docs/hire in your own people, and resell every single one of those services you listed to CVS nationally. You offer end-to-end services, for each of the ones you want to do, with integrated data, etc. You'd get CVS to pay for your advertising, via upselling from their "basic services"(known to you as cherry picked) to your "advanced services"(know to you as "grunt work"). You would have: 0 sales/marketing cost, and a permanent stream of customers, thereby turning your bitching into a boatload of $. Your complaining = The Pitch. They'd do it just to avoid the PR risk, get a piece of the upsell, and refer all other birdog complaining: to you. I don't know the ins/outs fully, but I know something is there, and now so you do. But, that requires you being smart, and not complaining. Tall order, especially the complaining part. I'd even help you out with IT stuff, and my VC contacts. (EDIT: now that I think about it, you only need to bring this to 1 guy, he loves schit like this) Or, you can pick squash and complain. Also, there are tons of "medical homes" right now, filled with nothing but the cherry picked. GentleCare comes to mind. So does Greenhouse project. You know anything about either?

Dude, we have people here who can't even recognize their own posts, slightly tweaked and written back at them. Posting as different people at least has the potential to be funny. I mean, arguing against yourself, as 2 different posters, in an effort to rile certain posters, or even mods...you have to admit: that has humor potential. But, yeah, if it's done for any reason besides humor: it's weird. Sure, but, there's a difference: opinion based on facts/honest effort at doing your own reasoning, and, opinion based on whatever crap you read at slate dot com yesterday. Ok, it's the Walmart idea, except it's CVS, and, you're moving the line from TPA, over to urgy care. Now, if we get rid of Obamacare, and use HSAs to pay for CVS Minute Clinic costs, we are really doing something. It's all the same thing to me: use the pre-existing economies that already exist for huge companies like CVS to deliver basic health care. Whether that's via insurance, or more smart and efficiently, through HSAs, doesn't really matter, because we always end up at the same place. Optometry has been doing this for decades. They will attract more of that business, the cheaper they make it. Insurance hinders that/has no effect, HSAs helps it. It's simple really. Meanwhile, if Walmart does the same thing? Now we are talking. Real competition, no government. Now, of course I expect the government to start regulating/sending surveyors in to kill this innovation. Don't you? Haven't you been working at a hospital for years? President Obama "I love this" publicly, then, "how can we tax it/create Federal/State jobs from it?" privately.

Now it's abortion? Abortion. A word I've never, ever, heard a single TEA partier say, never mind discuss seriously. They are fighting the wrong war, on the wrong battlefield, against the wrong enemy, at the wrong time, using the wrong tactics. Yes, the TEA party anti-abortion crusade. That must be how they've raised all this money, right gatorman? Ludicrous. And, encouraging. If they keep fighting the wrong enemy for long enough? The TEA party has a better chance of gaining enough strength to be deadly. Right now, it appears they won't ever know their enemy. We have plenty of history to tell us how that turns out. Let's see...Agincourt comes to mind, let's have some fun: I imagine: legions of proud(read: riddled with hubris) gatormans, on horseback, flailing in the mud, trying to get up a hill, but running into each other, going nowhere, and being shot to pieces by TEA party longbows. They yell "you want to stop all abortions!" as they die. And I'm standing there, on the top of the hill, laughing and saying "Not really. I just want to stop you", as another of my arrows hits its mark, and...stops them.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/06/innovate_or_die_121477.html This reads like a PPM introduction, which is why I posted it. Getting startup people, to do startup work, recognizing this as a startup business model...seems right to me. The question for the Wall Street Jedi Council here: would you buy this PPM? (yes, I know it's already funded. I want to know if you'd buy it, or let's say: would you keep an eye on it, and look to move your people towards it, if say it was headed towards IPO?) I'm intensely curious as to how they've designed this thing. I'd even be willing to do QA stuff, just to get a peek. I also like the CRM approach to voters. Proper CRM leads to excellent data warehouses. So does: mobile data collection = things we do/say/think that happen when we aren't sitting at our desks. I can prove that one. These guys appear to know what they are about, and of course I love the open source bit, but that's my own bias talking. In fact, there's very little here I am not biased towards. Hence, I want to know what the Wall Street types think. We'll see.

I'm not judging you: I am giving you the opportunity to prove what you are saying is true. To any of us. Here you have a chance to convince us that Guzman's argument is a election winning argument, and, to do it objectively. Objectively, that's the key word here: extricate yourself, and tell us which argument you think is a election winning argument. That's all this is. No mantra, just tell us which one you think is a winner, in this political enviornment, today. Speaking of objectively, how about we hear from the CBO horse's mouth: http://www.realclear...le_to_work.html The last 24 hours of Dimocratic spin, has ranged from the slightly absurd, to the downright bizarre. In the end, the CBO director has come out and told us, objectively, what's what. There is no rational next step for Democrats here. Best to say nothing and pray for something bad to happen at the Olympics. For Dimocrats: the next step is to attack Ryan(as if Ryan doesn't have more credibility on these issues in his pinky, than then entire left combined), and then attack the CBO director. Waste of time. The man has told you: Obamacare disincentivizes work. You gain nothing by keeping this in the news, but, you're goint to anyway, because you can't admit you are wrong. Sheer stupidity. I look at RCP this morning, and what do I see? Dimocrats insisting on keeping this in the news...2 day later. If they had just shut up, a dry story like CBO ends yesterday. Meanwhile there's hardly anyone talking about this on the R side of things. It's almost like: they know the idiots are going to do their job for them, and keep this in the news. Democrats know: continually being forced back onto Obamacare = lose in 2014. Dimocrats want to sit there and fight the losing battle. Which one are you birdog?

I suppose we an put GG down for "this is an election losing argument".

Man, being jumped on by a 300 lb woman? That's the worst way to go I've heard of in quite some time. I've always struggled with the death penalty, and I'm still unsure. I understand the arguments, I think, but, the right thing is still not clear to me. I really don't know. Of course, you read about something like this, and say: oh yeah the death penalty is warranted. But, then there's the next article that says innocent man executed to do lawyer/police incompetence, and the "innocence project", etc.

Well, now it's 8:38 am, how about we see where the experiment is at 2pm? And, I'm not hanging up on you, far from it: I've presented you with a choice. You have the free will to try and make the case that the Juan's argument is an election winner, and that keepthefaith's is not. Go ahead and try. I guarantee I will listen. (I make no promises about laughing...at you, and who knows, perhaps with you? Maybe there's some bridog insight that I may have missed? It's entirely possible: remember my years of JA impersonation are now over. I'm free to be funny once again, and less pedantic...unless it's required. )

Well here's something that might help our "self styled elite" friends actually begin to understand the TEA party. http://thefederalist...-establishment/ Notice I said: begin. I am not big on allegory, and that link has some. However I think this suffices: That's it right there: fellas, you don't understand the TEA party, because you are focused on the wrong things. Perhaps you should ask yourself where you get your focus from? And this: Average TEA party person = Smart enough/experienced enough to see things as they are. It's really that simple. This is precisely why talking about the TEA party in terms of gay marriage is silly. The TEA party sees that issue as it is: practically inconsequential because it involved <10% of the country, when compared to things like entitlement reform, and now Obamacare, which involves ALL of us. And this: Hmm. Sound familiar? Obamacare screams: "without merit". So does Global Warming, so does Benghazi, so does Dodd Frank, so does QE/Fiat currency, so does....practically all of it. The TEA party sees things as they are: therefore, they correctly see the Dims, and many establishment Rs, as "without merit", therefore, there's no way in hell they buy the lie that "they know best". The empirical evidence tells anyone who is paying attention, with a lucid eye, that there's hardly any merit in DC. Obamacare happened precisely because it's designers are: "without merit". And this: pretty much sums it up: The more you attack the TEA party with inaccurate claims, the stronger it becomes. It's sorta like Obi Wan: "Leftists, if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine". Darth Vader was using old thinking, and so he attacked and FAILED. Same result for leftists. Look at the fundraising $ at the beginning of the link. The TEA party HAS become more powerful than anyone, including me, could possibly imagine. Look at how Bills-fan-4ever poorly characterized the TEA party. That's who he thinks he is fighting. That's the nature of the battle he thinks he is fighting. Those are the tactics he thinks are going to work. He is: delusional. He wants to line up and fire muskets, not realizing he's fighting an unconventional opponent, in a frontier war. The TEA party isn't going to fight your kind of war, not ever, largely because they have nothing to gain from that kind of war. The true TEA party candidate has little interest in obtaining power in DC, as the normal establishment R would. They do want to line up and fire muskets because they want to claim DC, intact. TEA party person doesn't desire DC power: they want to destroy DC's crony capitalism/socialism power structure. This is why Democrats, thinking they can beat the TEA party, by attacking campaign finance, really have no clue. The IRS scandal has only empowered the TEA party, big time. Crony capitalism/socialism derives it's power from campaign finance. The only real difference between the TEA party and the left, on this issue: The TEA party wants unions/leftists special interests to be kicked out of politics as well as corporations. In this, the TEA party has the moral high ground, and 0 hypocrisy(take that, wawrow). See it yet wawrow/birdog/Bills-idiot? You are fighting the wrong enemy, in the wrong battle, at the wrong battlefield, at the wrong time, using the wrong tactics. No wonder "David" keeps winning/moving forward: This guy sees things as they are. The TEA party is in this for the long term. Patience is the key. We've seen what impatience does = nominating a witch to be a Senator in Delaware. But, the most important advantage the TEA party has over everyone: they admit their mistakes, as mistakes, first, and they learn from them. I seriously doubt any establishment D or R has learned anything new, or has been capable of admitting their mistakes, in years, if not decades. This only leads to, as the article says: demise. Sure, it's not going to happen right away, but, I assure you, most TEA party people I know, as I've said, are long-term thinkers. They know the value of peserverence. They aren't going to be distracted by "squirrel!". The long view on this says: constant, reasoned pressure is the way to go. In this the TEA party is the opposite of the environtologist whackos/expansion of gender/identity political activists, who require immediate action, because they require an immediate source of income, and damn the Obamacare consequences. The TEA party has plenty of $. Again, I direct you to their fundraising. Thus, the TEA party has time on it's side. It's all just a matter of time.

You're saying this at 3:51 am EST? Let's see what the rest of the day brings, shall we? Look, I have to be up at this time due to work. What the hell is your excuse?